’ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/loyalisminvirgin01harr 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


A  THESIS 


IN  HISTORY 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT 
OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 
OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


ISAAC  SAMUEL  HARRELL 

c 


PHILADELPHIA 


COPYRIGHT,  1926 
BY  DUKE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


PRESSES  OF 

THE  SEEMAN  PRINTERY  INCORPORATED 
a  DURHAM,  N.  C. 


HlLjx,  '—I  2-  7  " 


/.  J~£>  C<i>- 


PREFACE 


This  study  was  begun  with  the  view  of  deter¬ 
mining  the  extent  of  loyalty  to  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  in  Virginia  during  the  American  Revolution. 
As  the  investigation  proceeded  the  alignment  be¬ 
tween  economic  interests  and  political  parties  be¬ 
came  evident,  and,  in  the  light  of  information 
derived  from  material  hitherto  unused,  the  study 
of  Revolutionary  politics  has  evolved  into  a  mono¬ 
graph  in  economic  history.  The  terms  Loyalist 
and  Patriot  were  political  badges  to  designate 
men  who  were  divided  in  their  opinions;  many 
factors  contributed  to  this  division, — social,  poli¬ 
tical  and  economic.  This  study  is  an  attempt  to 
analyze  only  the  economic  factors.  There  is  no 
inclination  to  minimize  social  and  political  aspects 
of  the  Revolution  except  in  so  far  as  the  facts 
presented  modify  the  emphasis.  The  constitu¬ 
tional  controversy  is  a  more  or  less  familiar  story, 
and  it  has  not  been  deemed  necessary  to  repeat 
it  here. 

The  first  chapter,  an  analysis  of  the  economic 
conditions  peculiar  to  Virginia  in  the  decade  pre¬ 
ceding  the  Revolution,  is  necessary  to  what  fol¬ 
lows.  The  scarcity  of  fertile  lands  and  the  increase 


VI 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


in  the  price  of  these  lands,  coupled  with  the  pub¬ 
lic  and  private  indebtedness  of  the  Virginia  plan¬ 
ters,  explain  in  part  the  unanimity  of  the  Revo¬ 
lutionary  movement  and  the  absence  of  loyalty  to 
the  king  among  the  aristocratic  planters.  The 
second  chapter  is  a  study  of  the  strength,  organi¬ 
zation,  and  activity  of  the  loyalists  in  Virginia. 
The  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  chapters  treat  of  the 
punishment  of  the  loyalists  by  the  patriot  govern¬ 
ment  during  the  war,  the  period  of  the  Confedera¬ 
tion,  and  the  years  from  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  to  Jay’s  Treaty.  Throughout  em¬ 
phasis  is  placed,  not  upon  the  constitutional  and 
political  aspects  of  loyalism,  but  upon  the  economic 
forces  in  Revolutionary  Virginia. 

This  study  was  prepared  during  my  tenure,  in 
the  years  1923-1924,  of  the  George  Leib  Harrison 
fellowship  in  History  in  the  University  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania.  It  is  a  sincere  pleasure  to  record  my 
gratitude  to  Professor  St.  George  L.  Sioussat,  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  guidance 
he  has  given  me  at  every  stage  in  the  preparation 
of  this  study.  I  am  under  many  obligations  to 
Dean  Herman  V.  Ames,  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  whose  kindness  and  encouragement 
have  helped  me  in  every  way.  I  am  indebted  to 
Professor  William  K.  Boyd,  of  Duke  University, 
who  first  directed  my  interest  to  the  Revolution 


PREFACE 


Vll 


in  the  South.  I  wish  to  thank  Professor  William 
T.  Laprade,  of  Duke  University,  and  Professors 
McKinley  and  Nichols,  of  the  University  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  who  have  read  the  manuscript.  It  is 
proper  that  I  acknowledge  the  assistance  rendered 
me  by  Mr.  Morgan  P.  Robinson,  of  the  Virginia 
State  Library,  and  indirectly  the  aid  of  Dr.  H. 
J.  Eckenrode,  through  his  study  The  Revolution 
in  Virginia. 

Isaac  S.  Harrell. 


New  York  City. 
June,  1926. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS  OF  THE  REVOLUTION 

IN  VIRGINIA  3 

II.  CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA  30 

III.  LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE,  1775-1783  66 

IV.  LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS,  1782-1788  113 

V.  THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION  153 

CONCLUSION  179 

SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  183 


INDEX 


193 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


CHAPTER  I 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS  OF  THE 
REVOLUTION  IN  VIRGINIA 

Despite  the  events  of  the  preceding  decade,  in 
1773  loyalism  was  the  logical  state  of  mind  in 
Virginia;  loyalism  called  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  long  established  social,  religious,  and  political 
order.  In  religion,  in  social  customs,  in  personal 
contact,  Virginia,  of  all  the  colonies  in  North 
America,  was  most  closely  akin  to  the  mother 
country.  The  English  Church  was  established 
by  law  and  supported  with  taxes.  The  landed 
gentry  imitated  the  manners  and  tastes  of  the 
English  nobility;  they  educated  their  sons  at 
English  universities  and  read  the  latest  English 
books.  The  planters  borrowed  money  from  Eng¬ 
lish  brokers  to  operate  their  tobacco  plantations 
and  sold  their  products  to  English  traders.  If 
their  depleted  finances  would  permit,  they  made 
occasional  visits  to  that  mother  country  of  which 
they  were  so  proud.  From  Virginia,  more  than 
from  any  other  colony,  the  English  government 
expected  loyalty.  Yet  a  Virginian  drafted  the 
Declaration  of  Independence;  another  Virginian 
led  the  patriot  armies  in  the  field;  and  Virginia 


4 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


furnished  the  model  for  state  constitutions  and 
bills  of  rights.  “The  influence  of  the  Henrys, 
Lees  and  Washingtons,  have  overpowered  other 
provinces  and  most  fastly  checked  loyalty,”  wrote 
the  British  spy,  Paul  Wentworth,  in  his  notes  on 
political  parties  in  America  in  1 778. 1 

This  transition  from  loyalty  to  rebellion  is  at¬ 
tributed,  in  part,  to  the  constitutional  controversy 
between  the  colony  and  England.  The  exercise 
by  the  governor  of  his  power  to  suspend  colonial 
legislation  caused  continual  inconvenience  and 
hardship.  The  governor  had  not  exercised  this 
power  in  Virginia  prior  to  1729,  and  from  that 
date  until  1764  the  suspending  clause  was  added 
to  fewer  than  sixty  laws;  from  1764  to  1773  this 
clause  was  added  to  seventy-five  laws.2  Several 
years  frequently  elapsed  after  the  passage  of  a 
measure  before  any  action  was  taken  by  the  King, 
and  then  it  might  be  disallowed  or,  else,  approved 
with  amendments  that  completely  changed  the 
intent  of  its  framers.3  Extra  fees,  especially  the 
pistole  fee  on  land  grants,  became  a  matter  of 
great  irritation  to  Virginians.  Dissenters  were 
increasingly  numerous,  and  by  1774,  according  to 

*  B.  F.  Stevens,  Manuscripts  in  British  Archives  Relating  to 
America,  1773-1783,  V.  No.  487. 

*  P.  S.  Flippin,  The  Royal  Government  in  Virginia,  1624-1775, 

p.  200. 

*  C.  R.  Lingley,  Transition  in  Virginia,  p.  24. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


5 


the  estimate  of  Jefferson,  they  included  more  than 
half  of  the  people  in  the  colony.  They  were  work¬ 
ing  in  and  out  of  the  assembly  for  the  disestab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Church.4  The  theory  rapidly 
developed  in  Virginia  that  no  outside  authority 
should  legislate  on  the  internal  affairs  of  the 
colony. 

In  Virginia  the  House  of  Burgesses  led  the 
Revolution  in  its  inceptive  stages.  This  circum¬ 
stance,  as  Eckenrode  indicates,5  contrasts  with 
the  Revolutionary  movement  in  New  England, 
where  the  middle  and  lower  classes  supported  the 
changing  order.  The  landed  gentry  of  Virginia, 
bred  in  a  sphere  of  freedom  and  holding  posi¬ 
tions  of  ease  and  prominence  in  their  communi¬ 
ties,  were  jealous  of  any  encroachment  upon  their 
civil  and  political  rights,  whether  this  encroach¬ 
ment  was  by  the  royal  governor,  by  the  liberty 
loving  delegates  from  the  mountains,  or  by  the 
imperial  authority  three  thousand  miles  across  the 
ocean.  The  planters  had  leisure  for  reading  poli¬ 
tical  tracts  published  in  England  and  America  and 
for  discussing,  in  letters  and  conversation,  politi¬ 
cal  theories  and  social  tendencies.  They  developed, 

4  H.  J.  Eckenrode,  Separation  of  Church  and  State,  ch.  i ;  W. 
T.  Thom,  The  Struggle  for  Religious  Freedom  in  Virginia:  The 
Baptist;  H.  R.  Mcllwaine,  Struggle  for  Religious  Toleration  in 
Virginia. 

5  H.  J.  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  p.  39. 


6 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


as  did  no  other  class  of  colonials,  a  very  definit 
opinion  of  the  political  nature  of  the  British  em 
pire  and  of  their  own  rights  as  British  citizens  ii 
that  empire.  To  these  Virginians,  the  colonia 
controversy  from  1763  to  1775  was  fundamentally 
a  dispute  over  the  constitution  of  the  empire. 
The  principle,  rather  than  the  tax  on  tea,  sugar 
or  stamps,  impelled  leading  Virginians  to  enter  the 
struggle  for  reform.7  The  cause  of  Massachu 
setts  was  essentially  the  cause  of  Virginia,  o: 
America,  of  all  the  empire. 

Landon  Carter  was  a  typical  conservative 
statesman  of  the  Old  Dominion.  With  several 
large  plantations  worked  by  slaves,  many  worldly 
comforts,  a  good  social  position,  aijd  heavy 
debts,  he  cultivated  tobacco  and  talked  politics 
He  “saw  early  that  the  Agents  and  King  intendec 
to  subject  us  to  slavery”  and  claimed  for  himsel: 
the  honor  of  being  among  the  first  to  sound  pro¬ 
test  in  the  Virginia  assembly.  In  1775  he  wanted 
to  reform  the  empire.  If  the  British  Government 
“should  be  so  mad”  as  to  refuse  reform,  he  was 
“willing  to  be  compelled  to  independence,”  but  he 


8  An  excellent  example  of  the  constitutional  controversy  in 
Virginia  is  the  pamphlet,  Consideration  of  the  Present  State  of 
Virginia  (1774)  attributed  to  the  Attorney-General,  John  Ran¬ 
dolph,  and  Consideration  of  the  Present  State  of  Virginia  Ex¬ 
amined  by  Robert  Nicholas. 

7  H.  J.  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  chs.  i,  ii. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


7 


would  never  take  it  through  choice,  “agreeable  to 
the  sophisticated  non-sense  of  Common  Sense,  a 
mere  cookery  among  the  Congress.”  He  “chose 
to  be  compelled  to  independency  rather  than  have 
it  out  of  choice,  because  as  a  constitution  of 
Government,  none  is  so  good  as  the  British.”8 

In  considering  the  transition  from  loyalty  to 
rebellion,  these  constitutional  disputes  and  the 
inherent  self  reliance  of  colonials  have  received 
extensive  and  merited  attention,  but  economic 
conditions  in  the  colony  should  not  be  entirely 
overlooked  or  too  lightly  dismissed.  The  politi¬ 
cal  philosophy  of  a  people  is  seldom  unaffected 
by  the  material  situation.  Two  rich  treasure 
houses  of  information  pertinent  to  the  economic 
history  of  Revolutionary  Virginia  have  hitherto 
remained  unexplored — the  Patent  Books  in  the 
State  Land  Office  and  the  Auditor’s  Books  in  the 
manuscript  division  of  the  Virginia  State  Library. 
These  unexplored  sources  furnish  illuminating 
information  upon  three  phases  of  the  Revolution 
in  Virginia — the  land  problem,  public  finance,  and 
private  debts. 

Due  to  wasteful  methods  of  cultivation  and  the 
rapid  increase  of  population,  the  material  well 
being  of  many  Virginians  in  1775  depended  upon 
their  development  of  unoccupied  land.  The  lead- 

8  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XX.  177. 


8 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


ing  historian  of  the  Revolution  in  Virginia  has 
dismissed  the  plausibility  of  the  notion  that  con¬ 
flicting  interests  in  land  claims  “forced  the  land 
hungry  Virginians  to  go  into  the  Revolutionary 
movement,”  because  “lands  in  the  wilderness  at 
that  time  were  too  plentiful  and  too  cheap  to  fight 
about.”9  Lands  were  plentiful  indeed,  yet,  as 
more  than  one  colonial  empire  builder  from  Geor¬ 
gia  to  Massachusetts  knew  to  his  great  discom¬ 
fort,  it  was  extremely  difficult  to  secure  a  title  to 
any  lands  west  of  the  mountains  that  would  stand 
test  before  a  court.  As  early  as  1759  Governor 
Dinwiddie  reported  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that 
the  best  lands  in  Virginia  had  been  taken  up. 
The  population  of  the  colony  increased  from  less 
than  three  hundred  thousand  in  1750  to  over  half 
a  million  in  1775.  In  1774  Governor  Dunmore 
reported  to  Lord  Dartmouth  that  quitrents  were 
being  collected  from  ten  million  acres.10  The  price 
of  government  lands  was  fixed  at  ten  shillings  per 
hundred  acres,  but  the  market  price,  fluctuating 
with  supply  and  demand,  was  much  higher — two, 
three,  and  sometimes  four  pounds  an  acre  for  well 
located  meadow  lands  in  the  tide-water  and  pied¬ 
mont  sections.11  Patrick  Henry  considered  ten 

8  H.  J.  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  p.  39. 

10  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  Public  Record  Office  C.  O.,  5,  1352, 
Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

11  J.  C.  Ballagh,  Letters  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  I.  48. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


9 


pounds  per  hundred  acres  a  low  price  for  well 
located  lands  in  the  west.12  So  great  was  the  de¬ 
mand  for  land  that  tracts  lying  between  former 
and  old  surveys  in  the  settled  part  of  the  colony 
were  sought  out,  surveyed,  and  patented.  Be¬ 
tween  March,  1772,  and  July,  1774,  1164  grants 
were  made  for  approximately  three  hundred 
thousand  acres,  scattered  hither  and  thither  from 
Princess  Anne  to  Augusta  County.  The  demand 
for  land  was  insatiable,  but  the  supply  east  of  the 
line  fixed  under  the  Proclamation  of  1763  was 
exhausted  by  1774. 

Would-be  land  owners  looked  longingly  into  the 
fertile  fields  of  what  are  now  Kentucky  and  Ohio. 
The  Lees  of  Virginia  had  organized  the  Mississ¬ 
ippi  Land  Company  with  Dr.  Arthur  Lee  as  their 
principal  agent  in  London.14  George  Mason, 
among  the  foremost  of  the  radical  political 
leaders,  visualized  a  Virginian  empire  in  the 
west.15  Patrick  Henry  was  jealous  for  Virginia’s 
claim  under  her  charter,  and  when  Richard  Hen¬ 
derson  proposed  that  he  become  a  member  of  the 

UW.  W.  Henry,  Patrick  Henry,  I.  121. 

13  Patent  Books,  Virginia  Land  Office,  passim.  See  also  Dun- 
more  to  Dartmouth,  December  24,  1774,  Public  Record  Office 
C.  O.,  5,  1353.  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

14  C.  W.  Alvord,  Mississippi  Valley  in  British  Politics,  II.  93, 
110,  123. 

35  K.  M.  Rowland,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  George  Mason, 
I.  152-8. 


10 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Louisa  Company  and  a  proprietor  of  Kentucky, 
Henry  protested  that  “the  lands  belonged  to  Vir¬ 
ginia”  and  that  Henderson’s  title  was  worthless.16 
By  1774  Virginia’s  claim  to  these  rich  lands  was 
threatened  by  the  extreme  likelihood  that  the  royal 
government  would  grant  the  Ohio  and  Kentucky 
country  not  to  a  Virginia  company,  but  to  the 
Walpole  Company,  managed  by  the  Whartons  of 
Philadelphia,  including  Lord  Camden  and  the  Earl 
of  Hertford  of  the  English  court,  and  sponsored 
by  George  Grenville.17  Dunmore  wrote  Dart¬ 
mouth  that  there  was  great  apprehension  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  lest  the  Philadelphia  company  should  secure 
a  charter  from  the  crown  and  Virginia  thus  lose 
her  claims  based  upon  the  charter  of  1609  and 
Indian  treaties.  Dartmouth  replied: 

the  opinion  which  your  Lordship  says  has  prevailed  in 
Virginia  of  His  Majesty’s  determination  upon  the  propo¬ 
sitions  for  a  new  Government  upon  the  Ohio  was  certainly 
well  founded,  and  therefore  you  ought  to  be  very  cautious 
of  taking  any  steps  with  regard  to  the  lands  intended  to 
be  included  within  the  limits  of  that  Government,  and  the 
impropriety  of  grants  west  of  the  limits  of  Virginia  must 
be  obvious  to  you  and  every  proposition  of  settlement  in 
that  country  under  the  plea  of  Indian  purchases  is  not 
only  a  violation  of  the  King’s  rights,  but  diametrically 
opposite  to  and  inconsistent  with  those  principles  of  policy 
that  have  hitherto  operated  against  settlements  in  such 
situation.18 

”  Deposition  of  Patrick  Henry,  Executive  Communications, 
1776. 

17  Alvord,  Mississippi  Valley  in  British  Politics,  II.  93. 

18  Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  July  6,  1774,  Public  Record  Office, 
C.  O.,  5,  1352,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


11 


The  royal  government,  by  a  restrictive  and  selfish 
policy,  raised  a  legal  barrier  between  coveted 
lands  and  ambitious  Virginians. 

Apart  from  the  activities  of  the  Virginia  land 
companies,  some  farseeing  Virginians  purchased 
claims  to  bounty  lands  offered  by  Governor  Din- 
widdie  in  his  proclamation  of  1754.  Under  the 
leadership  of  George  Washington  and  Captain 
William  Crawford  and  with  the  approbation  of 
Governor  Dunmore,  the  more  enterprising  claim¬ 
ants  had  two  hundred  thousand  acres  surveyed 
and  apportioned  after  the  Indian  treaty  at  Fort 
Stanwix.19  The  British  government,  however, 
closely  watched  these  proceedings.  Dunmore  was 
instructed  to  send  a  detailed  list  of  the  surveys  to 
Lord  Dartmouth.  Virginians  also  purchased 
claims  to  bounty  lands  offered  “to  officers  and  sol¬ 
diers  of  our  armies”  under  the  royal  Proclamation 
of  1763.  As  the  lands  east  of  the  Proclamation 
line  were  exhausted,  they  sought  to  have  their 
claims  located  west  of  that  line.  In  July,  1773, 
Governor  Dunmore  issued  ten  patents,  totalling 
13,616  acres,  in  accordance  with  the  Proclamation 
of  1763. 20  The  Governor  was  sharply  repri- 

“  Virginia  Gazette,  January  14,  1773. 

“Patent  Books,  Virginia  Land  Office,  passim.  George  Wash¬ 
ington  received  2183  acres;  John  Connolly,  2000  acres. 


12 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


manded  for  permitting  these  surveys,  when  the 
reports  reached  the  Colonial  Office.  “I  think  fit 
to  suggest  to  you”,  Dartmouth  wrote  to  Dunmore 
April  6,  1774,  “that  independent  of  the  general 
impropriety  of  laying  out  any  lands  within  that 
tract  until  His  Majesty’s  pleasure  be  finally 
known,  it  seems  to  me  at  least  very  doubtful 
whether  provincial  officers  and  soldiers  are  in¬ 
cluded  in  that  proclamation,  and  therefore  I  trust 
that  you  will  grant  no  patents  for  such  locations 
or  allow  no  further  locations  to  be  made  upon 
such  claims  until  you  shall  have  received  further 
orders  from  the  King.”21  This  reprimand  and 
more  definite  instructions,  which  followed  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  1774,22  stopped  the  location  of  bounty 

ai  Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  April  6,  1774.  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1352,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

“  Lord  Dunmore  was  of  the  opinion  that  settlements  west  of 
the  mountains  should  be  restricted,  but,  as  this  policy  was  not 
considered  when  the  grants  to  Walpole  and  others  were  made, 
he  thought  the  practicable  thing  would  be  to  open  the  country 
to  the  Virginians.  “I  have  learnt  from  experience,”  he  wrote  to 
Dartmouth,  “that  the  established  authority  of  any  government  in 
America,  and  the  policy  at  home  are  both  insufficient  to  restrain 
the  Americans,  and  they  do  and  will  remove  as  their  avidity  and 
restlessness  incite  them.  They  acquire  no  attachment  to  place, 
but  wandering  about  seems  engrafted  in  their  nature,  and  it  is  a 
weakness  incident  to  it,  that  they  should  forever  imagine  that 
the  lands  further  off  are  still  better  than  those  upon  which  they 
are  already  settled. 

“I  have  had,  my  Lord,  frequent  opportunities  to  reflect  upon 
the  emigrating  spirit  of  the  Americans,  since  my  arrival  in  this 
government.  There  are  considerable  bodies  of  inhabitants,  set¬ 
tled  at  greater  and  less  distances,  from  the  regular  frontiers  of, 
I  believe,  all  the  colonies.  In  this  colony  proclamations  have 
been  published  from  time  to  time  to  restrain  them.  But  im- 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


13 


lands  west  of  the  mountains.  Patrick  Henry, 
Hugh  Innes,  Peter  Jefferson,  and  many  lesser  ex¬ 
soldiers  and  speculators  held  unsurveyed  claims.23 
These  claims  could  not  be  located  until  there  was 
a  change  in  the  royal  policy. 

In  the  third  place,  the  western  aspirations  of 
these  would-be  landowners  were  manifested  by 
Lord  Dunmore’s  War.  In  order  that  surveys 
might  be  made,  it  was  necessary  that  the  trouble¬ 
some  Shawnee  Indians  be  driven  out.  Dunmore’s 
War  was  conducted  to  accomplish  this.  It  is  im¬ 


pressed  from  their  earliest  infancy  with  sentiments  and  habits 
very  different  from  those  acquired  by  persons  of  a  similar  con¬ 
dition  in  England,  they  do  not  conceive  that  government  had  any 
right  to  forbid  their  taking  possession  of  a  vast  tract  of  country, 
either  uninhabited,  or  which  serves  only  as  a  shelter  to  a  few 
scattered  tribes  of  Indians.  Nor  can  they  be  brought  to  enter¬ 
tain  any  belief  of  the  permanent  obligations  of  treaties  made  with 
those  people,  whom  they  consider  as  but  little  removed  from  the 
brute  creation.  These  notions,  my  Lord,  I  beg  it  may  be  under¬ 
stood,  I  by  no  means  pretend  to  justify.  .  .  .  Three  considerations 
offer  themselves  for  His  Majesty’s  approbation.  The  first  is  to 
suffer  these  emigrants  to  hold  their  lands  of  and  incorporate  with 
the  Indians ;  the  dreadful  consequence  of  which  may  be  easily 
foreseen,  and  which  I  leave  to  Your  Lordship’s  judgement.  The 
second  is  to  permit  them  to  form  a  set  of  Democratic  Govern¬ 
ments  of  their  own  upon  the  back  of  the  colonies,  a  scheme 
which  for  obvious  reasons,  I  comprehend  cannot  be  allowed  to 
be  carried  into  execution.  The  last  is  that  which  I  propose  to 
Your  Lordship,  to  receive  persons  in  these  circumstances,  under 
the  protection  of  some  of  His  Majesty’s  Governments  already 
established  and  in  giving  this  advice,  I  have  no  thoughts  of 
bringing  dishonor  upon  the  Crown.  On  the  contrary  the  measure 
appeared  to  me  as  the  wisest,  and  safest  that  could  be  entered 
into  under  the  circumstances  above  mentioned.”  Dunmore  to 
Dartmouth,  December  24,  1774,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5, 
1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

23  Patent  Book  A,  330,  331,  333.  F,  passim. 


14 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


possible  to  estimate  to  what  extent  personal  inter¬ 
ests  influenced  the  policy  of  Governor  Dunmore.24 
While  governor  of  New  York,  he  purchased  fifty 
thousand  acres  subject  to  the  usual  quitrent  and 
made  application  for  other  lands,  rent  free.25  He 
was  suspected  by  the  colonial  office  of  being  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  Illinois  Land  Company.26  Be  this  as 
it  may,  Virginians  heartily  supported  the  war  for 
pushing  back  their  Indian  foes  and  opening  new^ 
lands  for  settlement.  The  expedition  brought  pro¬ 
test  from  Pennsylvanians,  who  were  skeptical  of 
Dunmore’s  personal  motives,  and  from  Sir  Wil¬ 
liam  Johnson,  who  feared  that  a  general  Indian 
uprising  would  be  the  result.  This  war  opened 

24  On  May  16,  1774,  Lord  Dunmore  had  forwarded  a  petition  of 
David  Franks,  William  Murray,  John  Campbell,  Alexander  Ross, 
Bernard  Gratz,  and  others  of  Philadelphia  for  an  extensive  grant 
of  land  west  of  Virginia  to  Lord  Dartmouth.  The  Illinois  Land 
Company  was  founded  by  David  Franks  and  Company,  rivals  of 
the  Whartons  for  the  Indian  trade.  Dunmore,  in  his  transmission 
of  the  petition,  approved  of  the  grant.  Again,  the  Governor  of 
Virginia  urged  that,  despite  all  efforts  to  the  contrary,  settlers 
were  crossing  the  mountains  (see  note  22),  and  this  grant  to  the 
Illinois  Land  Company  would  insure  a  lawful  government  under 
British  control.  Dunmore  was  accused  of  being  personally  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  enterprise,  but  this  he  later  denied.  Dunmore  to 
Dartmouth,  May  16,  1774,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1352, 
Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

25  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  December  24,  1774,  Public  Record 
Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

M  Dunmore’s  explanation  of  his  interest  in  western  lands  was 
accepted  as  satisfactory  by  Lord  Dartmouth.  The  explanation 
left  “no  room  in  the  Royal  Breast  to  doubt  of  the  uprightness  of 
your  Lordships  intentions.”  Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  March  3, 
1775.  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress 
Transcripts. 


1 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


15 


the  door  for  the  settlement  of  Kentucky  and  the 
winning  of  the  West;  it  cleared  the  way  for  the 
claims  of  Virginians  to  the  fertile  lands  in  the 
blue-grass  country.  But  it  was  frankly  disap¬ 
proved  of  by  the  royal  government.27 

37  There  has  been  an  attempt  to  characterize  the  battle  at  Point 
Pleasant  as  the  first  battle  of  the  Revolution  (See  J.  T.  McAl- 
lester  in  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  IX. 
395-407).  McAllester  takes  the  position  “that  everyone  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  knew  the  Revolution  was  coming”  in  1774  and  that  Lord 
Dunmore,  in  conjunction  with  his  agent,  Dr.  John  Connolly, 
planned  the  annihilation  of  the  frontier  militia.  The  Governor 
sent  this  militia  into  an  apparently  hopeless  contest  with  the 
Indians,  while  he  was  absent  with  the  regiments  from  the  east. 
Years  after  the  battle,  General  Lewis  made  a  statement  to  this 
effect.  Contemporary  opinion  in  Virginia  held  that  the  war  was 
against  the  Indians  and  the  Pennsylvania  interest  in  the  west : 
“Lord  Dunmore  wants  1200  men  to  fight  the  Pennsylvanians” 
(Diary  of  Landon  Carter,  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly, 
XIV.  183).  Others  saw  in  the  war  an  opportunity  to  get  claims 
to  western  lands  surveyed.  Colonel  William  Preston,  in  calling 
out  the  militia  of  Fincastle  County,  rejoiced  “that  the  opportunity 
we  have  so  long  wished  for  is  now  before  us.”  (R.  G.  Thwaites 
and  L.  P.  Kellogg,  Dunmore’ s  War,  p.  67).  Lyman  Draper 
characterized  this  war  as  the  “most  popular  event  of  Dunmore’s 
administration”  {Ibid.,  p.  425).  A  contemporary  In  Pennsylvania 
wrote  from  the  western  part  of  the  colony  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
war  that  it  was  an  attempt  “of  Virginia  land  jobbers  to  execute 
plans  formed  for  their  private  emolument”  (Ibid.).  John  Bow¬ 
ers,  for  six  years  a  member  of  the  Virginia  assembly  from  Bote¬ 
tourt  County,  disapproved  of  the  war  as  unjustifiable  and  without 
authority,  and  “it  merely  was  to  get  their  lands  surveyed  that 
Lord  Dunmore  and  Colonel  Lewis  had  undertaken  it”  (Virginia 
Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIII.  46).  The  British 
government  knew  nothing  of  the  expedition;  “I  am  at  loss  to 
guess  at  the  motives  which  led  to  the  hostilities  against  the  Shaw¬ 
nee,”  Dartmouth  wrote  to  Sir  William  Johnson,  February  1,  1775, 
(New  York  Colonial  Documents,  VIII.  531).  The  war  was  in 
no  respect  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution.  The  soldiers  who 
had  accompanied  Dunmore  to  the  frontier  drew  up  resolutions 
of  confidence  in  the  Governor.  Several  months  later,  when  Dun¬ 
more  was  enraged  over  the  threats  of  Patrick  Henry,  he  swore 
“that  he  had  once  fought  for  Virginians,  and  that,  by  God,  he 
would  let  them  see  he  could  fight  against  them”  (Virginia  Maga- 


16 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Upon  his  return  from  the  western  campaign, 
Lord  Dunmore  found  awaiting  him  from  Lord 
Dartmouth  a  letter  dated  September  8.  It  ex¬ 
pressed  well  the  British  policy  in  the  west.  Dun- 
more  was  called  sharply  to  account  for  the  encour¬ 
agement  he  had  given  to  surveys  and  settlements 
beyond  the  mountains  and  especially  for  the  sup¬ 
port  he  had  given  the  Illinois  Land  Company,  a 
rival  of  the  Walpole  Company.  “Admitting  it  to 
be  advisable,  as  Your  Lordship  contends,  upon 
grounds  of  general  policy  to  allow  settlements 
under  the  authority  of  the  government  of  Virginia 
beyond  that  line  [the  Proclamation  line  of  1763] 
(of  which  myself  and  the  rest  of  the  King’s  Ser¬ 
vants  entertain  very  grave  doubts),”  while  treaties 
with  the  Indians  exist,  “every  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  King’s  Subjects  to  acquire  title  to  and  take 
possession  of  lands  beyond  the  line  fixed  by  His 
Majesty’s  Authority  and  every  encouragement 
given  to  such  attempt,  can  be  considered  in  no 
other  light  than  a  gross  indignity  and  dishonor 
to  the  Crown.”  The  King  “expresses  his  great 
displeasure  at  your  action”,  and  if  it  were  not 
for  his  kindness  he  “would  make  use  of  other 

zine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIII.  49).  Virginia  was  deter¬ 
mined  to  make  the  most  of  this  war  against  the  Indians  and 
Pennsylvania  agents ;  the  following  summer  a  delegation  was  sent 
by  the  assembly  to  treat  with  the  Shawnee  Indians  on  the  basis 
of  Dunmore’s  victory  (See  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and 
Biography,  XIV.  54-75). 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


17 


marks  of  Royal  displeasure. — It  is  the  King’s 
pleasure  that  you  do  exert  every  power  and  au¬ 
thority  which  the  constitution  has  vested  in  you, 
to  preserve  inviolate  the  engagements  entered  into 
in  the  King’s  name  with  the  Indians,  and  to  pre¬ 
vent  any  settlement  whatever  being  made  upon  any 
pretense  beyond  the  line  settled  at  the  Congress 
at  Lochaber  in  October,  1770. — You  are  to  make 
no  grants  nor  exercise  any  other  jurisdiction  than 
shall  be  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve  public 
peace  and  prevent  violence  and  bloodshed”  in  that 
district.  Dunmore  was  directed  to  send  imme¬ 
diately  a  list  of  all  the  land  grants  made  during  his 
administration.28  The  Governor  had  written  Dart¬ 
mouth  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  Proclamation 
of  1763  and  the  policy  of  not  granting  lands  west 
of  the  mountains.  This,  Dartmouth  ironically 
observed,  “must  have  been  a  very  extraordinary 
neglect  of  the  Council.”29  Several  weeks  later 
Dunmore  was  censured  for  opening  war  against 
the  Indians  without  making  “known  your  inten- 
tion  to  His  Majesty’s  Superintendent  for  the 
Northern  District  and  consulting  him  upon  it.”30 

28  Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  September  8,  1774,  Public  Record 
Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1352,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

"Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  October  5,  1774,  Public  Record  Office, 
C.  O.,  5,  1352,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

"Dartmouth  to  Dunmore,  January  7,  1775,  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


18 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


With  these  strict  orders  and  under  severe  repri¬ 
mand,  Dunmore  could  no  longer  give  his  consent 
to  surveys  of  lands  west  of  the  mountains ;  subse¬ 
quent  grants  were  smaller  and  confined  to  terri¬ 
tory  east  of  the  Appalachians.31 

Neither  the  established  authority  of  the  govern¬ 
ments  in  America  nor  the  imperial  policy  of  the 
mother  country  was  able  to  retard  the  restless  pio¬ 
neers.  The  British  ministry  decided  to  open  grad¬ 
ually  the  west  for  settlement.  The  Board  of  Trade, 
after  an  extensive  investigation,  made  recommen¬ 
dations  to  the  Privy  Council  in  October,  1773,  and 
new  instructions  for  granting  lands  were  sent  to 
the  royal  governors  in  1774.  But  these  instruc¬ 
tions  did  not  calm  the  irate  Virginians.  Free 
grants  were  prohibited ;  the  newly  prescribed  sys¬ 
tem  of  surveys  prevented  indiscriminate  locations ; 
lands  were  to  be  sold  at  auction,  and  quitrents  in 
Virginia  were  doubled.32  Thomas  Jefferson  held 
the  view  that  the  land  did  not  belong  to  the  king, 
and,  as  “his  majesty  has  lately  taken  on  him  to  ad-  | 
vance  the  terms  of  purchase  and  of  holding  to 
double  of  what  they  were — It  is  time  for  us  to  lay 
this  matter  before  his  majesty,  and  to  declare  that 

11  Patent  Book  E,  1-40  passim. 

”  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  S,  241.  Library  of  Congress  1 
Transcripts.  Conveniently  found  in  S.  E.  Morison,  The  American  \ 
Revolution  1764-1788,  pp.  97-100,  or  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu¬ 
ments,  VIII.  357. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


19 


he  has  no  right  to  grant  lands  of  himself.”33  A 
committee  of  lawyers,  appointed  by  the  Virginia 
convention  of  1775  to  determine  whether  the 
King  could  advance  the  terms  of  granting  lands, 
recommended  that  all  persons  forbear  purchas¬ 
ing  or  accepting  grants  on  the  conditions  pre¬ 
scribed  in  the  new  regulations.34 

Agricultural  Virginia,  dependent  upon  land  for 
a  livelihood,  looked  to  the  west.  If  Virginia’s 
claim  to  the  west  was  to  be  honored,  there  must 
be  a  change  in  the  policy  of  the  royal  government, 
or  that  government  must  be  abolished  in  Virginia. 
There  was  no  prospect  of  a  change  in  the  policy  of 
the  royal  government.  The  Walpole  grants  were 
ready  to  pass  the  Seal,  and  the  lands  beyond  the 
mountains  would  be  lost  forever  to  Virginia. 

The  western  policy  of  Virginia  subsequent  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  even  more 
indicative  of  the  aspirations  of  leading  Virgin¬ 
ians.  One  of  the  last  official  acts  of  Lord  Dun- 
more  as  governor  of  Virginia  was  the  outlawing 
of  Richard  Henderson,  who  attempted  to  make 
a  settlement  in  Kentucky  on  lands  purchased  from 
the  Indians.  The  Revolutionary  government 
played  Dunmore’s  role  to  its  logical  conclusion. 

33  Thomas  Jefferson,  Writings  (Ford  edition),  II.  85. 

34  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  March  14,  1775,  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


20 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Virginia  blocked  Henderson’s  schemes,  first  in  is! 
the  Continental  Congress  and  then  at  Williams-  so 
burg.  George  Rogers  Clark  visited  Patrick  la 
Henry,  governor  of  Virginia,  in  the  summer  of  in 
'1776  and  secured  from  him  an  order  for  gun-  1! 
powder  for  the  defense  of  the  Kentucky  settle-  n 
ments.  Henderson’s  purchase  was  declared  void,  d 
and  Virginia  provided  a  government  for  the  terri-  1. 
tory.35  Nor  were  the  Virginians  willing  that  Con¬ 
gress  should  establish  a  claim  over  these  lands.  On  i 
July  8,  1778,  almost  contemporary  with  the  final 
action  in  Virginia  on  the  claims  of  Henderson  and 
Company,  Patrick  Henry  discouraged  an  expedi¬ 
tion  that  Congress  was  preparing  to  send  against 
Detroit.  Virginia,  he  declared,  was  in  no  position 
to  aid  any  such  undertaking.36  At  the  same  time, 
Henry,  as  governor,  heartily  supported  with  Vir¬ 
ginia  men  and  Virginia  money  George  Rogers 
Clark  in  his  conquest  of  the  Northwest.  Posts 
on  the  Mississippi  were  seized.  Governor  Hamil¬ 
ton  was  brought  a  prisoner  to  Virginia.  The 
Indians  were  quieted.  By  force  of  arms,  Virginia 
reestablished  the  claim  to  that  country  which  she 
was  so  near  losing  in  1775. 

The  coveted  West  once  more  a  part  of  Vir¬ 
ginia,  the  policy  of  expansion,  checked  by  the  Brit- 

35  A.  Henderson,  Conquest  of  the  Old  Southwest,  chs.  xiv,  xv, 
xvii. 

33  Papers  of  the  Continental  Congress,  LXXI. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


21 


ish  government,  was  resumed.  Thomas  Jeffer¬ 
son  presented  his  draft  of  the  first  Virginia  land 
law  to  the  assembly  in  May,  1779.  All  surveys 
made  before  1778  by  surveyors  of  William  and 
Mary  College37  were  to  be  valid.  The  large  grants 
made  by  the  royal  governor  and  his  council  were 
declared  void,  unless  such  grants  had  been  fol¬ 
lowed  by  actual  survey.  Settlers  who  were  on 
the  land  prior  to  January  1,  1778,  were  to  receive 
patents  for  their  lands  up  to  four  hundred  acres ; 
six  hundred  and  forty  acres  were  to  be  set  aside 
in  each  village  for  public  use;  no  quitrents  were 
to  be  charged.  Despite  the  protest  of  the  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress,  a  land  office  was  opened  by  the 
state,  and  lands  were  put  on  sale  at  the  old  price 
of  ten  shillings  per  hundred  acres.38  Patrick 
Henry  had  sold  military  certificates  issued  under 
the  Proclamation  of  1763  to  Thomas  Madison, 
and  Madison  immediately  proceeded  to  have  sur¬ 
veys  made.  Henry  paid  forty  pounds  sterling  in¬ 
to  the  land  office  and  took  out  patents  for  ten 
thousand  acres.39  Henry  Lee,40  Levin  Powell,41 

37  In  colonial  Virginia  surveys  were  made  under  the  supervision 
of  William  and  Mary  College. 

38  For  the  protest  of  Congress,  see  Journals  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  XV.  1226-28.  The  Virginia  land  law,  a  neglected  land¬ 
mark  in  the  national  land  system,  is  printed  in  full  in  W.  W.  Hen- 
ing.  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  35-50. 

39  Patent  Book  A,  330-333 ;  F,  400-470. 

40  Ibid .,  F,  274. 

41  Ibid.,  F,  356. 


22 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Hugh  Innes,42  Andrew  Lewis,43  Hugh  Mercer,44 
Georg-e  Washington,45  William  Christian,46  and 
many  other  Virginians  secured  the  lands  that  the 
British  government  had  denied  them.  Before  the 
end  of  the  Revolution  approximately  four  thous¬ 
and  grants  for  one  million,  three  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  acres  had  been  made,  followed  by 
surveys  and  the  deeds  recorded  in  the  Virginia 
land  office.47  Four  fifths  of  these  grants  were 
issued  to  Virginians.  There  were  a  few  large 
grants  made  under  the  Proclamation  of  1763, 48 
but  the  greater  number  of  grants  were  for  tracts 
of  between  one  hundred  and  fifty  and  three 
hundred  acres.  No  one  who  had  hoped  to  secure 
lands  across  the  mountains  could  be  unaffected  by 
this  change  in  policy.  What  the  British  ministry 
had  closed  fast  to  loyal  Virginians,  the  Revolu¬ 
tionary  government  opened  to  the  patriots  upon 
most  liberal  terms. 

Furthermore,  the  colony  could  hardly  have  been 
unaffected  by  the  condition  of  public  finance.  The 

42  Patent  Book,  F,  passim. 

43  Ibid.,  E,  passim. 

44  Ibid.,  E,  passim. 

45  Ibid.,  E,  passim. 

“Ibid.,  A,  passim. 

47  Patent  Books  A  to  F,  passim. 

48  For  example,  William  Christian  received  a  patent  for  7000 
acres  (Patent  Book  A)  ;  Andrew  Lewis,  7000  acres  (Patent 
Book  E)  ;  and  Hugh  Mercer,  a  patent  for  10,000  acres  (Ibid.). 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


23 


three  principal  sources  of  revenue  were  the  quit- 
rents,  which  yielded  between  ten  and  fifteen 
thousand  pounds,  the  custom  duties,  with  a  yield 
of  from  six  to  nine  thousand,  and  the  poll  tax, 
which  ranged  from  one  to  five  thousand  per  year. 
In  1773  there  was  a  favorable  balance  of  eight 
thousand  pounds  from  the  quitrents  and  nearly 
two  thousand  from  the  customs,  after  the  royal 
officials  in  Virginia  had  been  paid.49  This  balance, 
however,  was  not  at  the  disposal  of  the  colonial 
assembly,  but  was  subject  to  the  control  of  the 
royal  treasury.  The  cost  of  local  government  was 
increasingly  great,  and  the  poll  tax,  the  principal 
revenue  of  the  assembly,  was  exploited  to  meet 
these  growing  expenses.50  Virginians  could  not 
have  regarded  with  complacence  the  increase  of 
poll  taxes  while  a  surplus,  created  from,  the  quit- 
rents  and  customs,  was  being  paid  into  the  royal 
treasury. 

At  the  same  time,  the  taxpayer  and  colonial 
treasury  were  being  strained  to  the  utmost  to 
redeem  the  paper  money  issued  during  the  Seven 
Years  War.  Redemption  was  remarkable.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  war  Virginia  had  authorized  £450,000  of 
paper.  In  1767  only  £206,757  were  outstanding. 

*“  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  February  7,  1775,  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

K  W.  Z.  Ripley,  The  Financial  History  of  Virginia  1609-1776. 


24 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


However,  in  1769,  £10,000  were  issued  to  meet 
the  contingent  expenses  of  government,  and,  in 
1771,£30,000  were  issued  for  the  relief  of  planters 
whose  tobacco  had  been  destroyed  in  the  public 
warehouses  by  the  freshets  of  the  previous  spring. 
Despite  this  increase  of  £40,000,  only  £54,391 
were  outstanding  in  1774.51  This  rapid  contrac¬ 
tion  of  the  currency  created  discontent  and  unrest 
among  Virginians,  many  of  whom  were  deb¬ 
tors.  This  discontent  was  considerably  increased 
when  it  was  discovered  that  John  Robinson,  the 
late  treasurer  and  the  leader  of  the  political  ma¬ 
chine  of  the  tidewater  aristocrats,  had  loaned 
£103,000  of  paper  money  that  should  have  been 
destroyed  to  bankrupt  politicians  who  had  sup¬ 
ported  the  machine.52  Discontented  Virginians 
raised  a  cry  for  more  paper  money.  In  1765, 
and  again  in  1767,  the  House  of  Burgesses  passed 
a  bill  to  establish  a  loan  office,  but  the  council  de¬ 
feated  the  measure. 

Added  to  these  conditions,  and  partly  ensuing 
from  them,  was  the  unfavorable  trend  of  foreign 
exchange.  Colonial  planters  bought  heavily  in 
England  from  1765  to  1775,  especially  during  the 

“  WU[iam  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XX.  228.  A  most  sug¬ 
gestive  and  interesting  account  of  the  finances  of  Virginia  from 
1763  to  1775,  written  by  the  colonial  treasurer,  Robert  Carter 
Nicholas,  and  first  printed  in  the  Virginia  Gazette. 

“  W.  E.  Dodd,  Statesmen  of  the  Old  South,  pp.  16-18. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


25 


period  immediately  following  the  repeal  of  the 
Townshend— Aets.  The  balance  of  trade  was 
against  Virginia.  Usually  Virginia  exchange  was 
about  fifteen  per  cent,  under  par  on  London.  In 
1772  the  exchange  fell  to  twenty-five  per  cent, 
under  par,  and  in  May,  1773,  at  the  semi-annual 
meeting  of  the  Virginia  merchants,  the  rate  was 
fixed  at  thirty  per  cent,  below  par.  At  this  point 
bullion  began  to  move.  The  colonial  treasurer, 
Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  complained  that  he  was 
unable  to  keep  the  usual  reserve  of  fifteen  or  twen¬ 
ty  thousand  pounds  in  gold  and  silver  in  the  treas¬ 
ury.  By  1774  the  colonial  reserve  was  exhausted, 
and  the  treasurer  was  unable  to  redeem  the  fifty- 
four  thousand  pounds  of  paper  then  in  circulation. 
The  bullion  had  gone  to  Europe.  Public  credit 
Segan  to  totter.  Discontent  and  the  demand  for 
paper  money  became  more  emphatic.53  But  the 
British  government,  fostering  the  interests  of  the 
merchants,  was  the  unwavering  opponent  of  a 
paper  currency.  Revenue  was  going  from  Vir¬ 
ginia  into  the  royal  treasury;  the  colony  was  los¬ 
ing  its  supply  of  bullion  to  offset  the  unfavorable 
balance  of  exchange;  public  credit  was  tottering, 
and  these  conditions  produced  a  social  and  econo¬ 
mic  situation  favorable  to  the  growth  of  Revolu¬ 
tionary  propaganda. 


“  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XX.  228. 


26 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


More  appalling  than  the  deplorable  condition  of 
the  public  finance  was  the  heavy  indebtedness  of 
the  Virginia  planters  to  British  merchants.  These 
debts  had  become  “hereditary  from  father  to  son 
for  many  generations,  so  that  the  planters  were  a 
species  of  property  annexed  to  certain  mercantile 
houses  in  London.”  Jefferson  estimated  that 
“certainly  £2,000,000  sterling  and  possibly  more 
.  was  due  from  Virginia  to  British  merchants.”54 
In  1791  a  group  of  merchants  in  Great  Britain 
submitted  to  their  government  a  statement  of 
amounts  due  them  from  American  customers  in 
1775.  The  total,  with  fourteen  years  interest, 
•  amounted  to  £4,930,656;  £4,137,944,  over  five 
sixths  of  the  total,  was  due  from  states  south  of 
'f  Pennsylvania;  £2,305,408,  over  half  of  this 
,  amount,  was  due  from  Virginia.55  With  their 
plantations,  slaves,  and  sometimes  household  fur¬ 
niture  hypothecated,  the  planters  were  in  an  al¬ 
most  inextricable  position  in  1775;  it  seemed  that 
nothing  less  than  virtual  repudiatioiVcould1rel£^e 
them. 

In  May,  1774,  when  the  Revolution  was  in  its 
inceptive  stage,  Thomas  Jefferson  and  Patrick 
Henry  made  the  sweeping  proposal  before  the 
extra-legal  meeting  of  the  assembly  that  all  pay- 

'  “Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  201. 

65  S.  F.  Bemis,  Jay’s  Treaty,  p.  103. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


27 


ments  on  British  debts  should  stop.56  The  con¬ 
servatives,  however,  were  not  yet  ready  for  the 
leadership  of  these  radicals.  In  October,  1777, 
when  the  principles  of  rifle  democracy  were  su¬ 
preme,  a  law  was  passed  which  provided  in  part 
for  the  sequestration  of  these  debts.57 

These  debts  involved  the  leading  families  of 
Virginia.  John  Randolph’s  lather  owed  the  Lon¬ 
don  firm,  Capel  and  Osgood  Hanbury,  eleven  thou¬ 
sand  pounds  sterling;  he  was  also  a  heavy  debtor 
to  Jones  and  Farrell.58  Archibald  Cary  was  in  debt 
to  the  Hanburys  for  over  seven  thousand  pounds 
and  to  Archibald  Lidderdale  and  Company  for 
nearly  three  thousand  pounds.59  Kippen  and 
Company,  of  Glasgow,  and  Jones  and  Farrell,  of 
London,  held  bonds  against  Thomas  Jefferson  for 
approximately  ten  thousand  pounds.60  Benjamin 
Harrison,  later  governor  of  Virginia,  owed  two 
thousand  pounds  to  British  trading  houses,  most 
of  it  to  the  Hanburys.61  Patrick  Henry,  Burr 
Harrison,  Edmund  Pendleton,  George  Webb, 

"  Journals  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia,  1773-1776,  V  - 
p.  139.  James  Parker,  June  17,  1774,  wrote  from  Williamsburg 
to  Charles  Steuart,  a  former  Virginia  merchant,  that  Henry, 

R.  H.  Lee,  and  George  Mason  were  for  stopping  payments  on 
British  debts.  Magazine  of  History,  III.  153. 

"  See  below,  pp.  80f. 

88  Auditor’s  Cash  Boolf,  May  4,  1780. 

"Ibid.,  May  23,  1780. 

“Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  348,  357. 

“Auditor’s  Cash  Book,  May  8,  1780. 


28 


LOYALISM  IN  \  IRGINIA 


William  Brent,  William  Harrison,  Joseph  Jones, 
the  Balls,  the  Lees,  the  Flemings,  and  the  Marsh¬ 
alls  took  advantage  of  the  Revolutionary  provision 
to  pay  sterling  debts  due  to  British  merchants  in 
depreciated  Virginia  currency.62  Ryland  Randolph 
paid  a  debt  of  nearly  six  thousand  pounds.63  Ben¬ 
jamin  Waller  took  £6578  in  depreciated  Virginia 
currency  to  the  Virginia  loan  office  and  discharg¬ 
ed  sterling  debts  due  to  seven  British  merchants.64 
Such  were  the  advantages  that  the  Revolution 
offered  to  the  indebted  planter.  In  addition  to 
these  more  outstanding  Virginians  mentioned, 
five  hundred  debtors  paid  depreciated  paper  money 
into  the  state  loan  office65  to  discharge  sterling 
debts  due  to  British  merchants.  The  political 
philosophy  of  such  Virginians  could  not  have  been 
unaffected  by  their  economic  situation.66 

There  is  here  no  inclination  to  underestimate 
the  political  theories  involved  in  the  American 

93  Ibid.,  1778-1780,  passim. 

63  Ibid.,  May  21,  1778. 

64  Ibid.,  1778-1780,  passim. 

9S  Ibid.  Many  of  the  small  debtors  paid  off  mortgages  held 
against  them  by  British  merchants.  A  great  majority  of  the 
debts  were  for  merchandise. 

99  Eckenrode  has  indicated  that  the  Revolution  in  Virginia  was 
led  by  the  upper  class.  Two  members  of  Dunmore’s  council, 
John  Page  and  William  Nelson,  became  active  patriots.  Not 
more  than  two  or  three  graduates  of  William  and  Mary  College 
were  loyalists.  Of  the  three  hundred  and  eight  attainted  by  the 
law  of  1778  in  Massachusetts,  sixty-five  were  Harvard  graduates. 
Powerful  economic  forces  explain  in  part  this  puzzling  contrast. 
See  Eckenrode,  Revolution  in  Virginia,  especially  chapter  ii. 


ECONOMIC  ANTECEDENTS 


29 


Revolution,  to  question  the  devotion  of  Wash¬ 
ington,  the  patriotism  of  Henry,  or  the  political 
astuteness  of  Jefferson.  Bjjt  an  examination  of 
the  constitutional  principles  that  appealed  to  leacP 
ing  citizens  does  not  afford  a  complete  explana^ 
flonof^ the  momentous  movemenF which  trans¬ 
formed  Virginia,  the~^hd5t~rritT3r^ 
in  North  America,  into  a  staunch  supporterTrtTie 
Revolutionary^  doctrines.  Lands  to  the  westT" 

claimed  by  Virginia  under  charters,  won  from 
France  partly  by  Virginia  men  and  with  Virginia 
money,  and  sorely  needed  by  Virginia  in  1775, 
were  being  exploited  by  an  irresponsive  govern¬ 
ment — bartered  and  pawned  to  court  favorites, 
politicians,  and  speculators.  The  rapid  contrac¬ 
tion  of  the  rnrremw— to-Jneet  the  demands  of  the 
British  trading  interests  and  th^xuLions  trend-of 
Virgioia-^xchaitg^-arcentnated  the  diverse  econo¬ 
mic  interests  nf-the  colony  and  the  mnlliex-^w- 
trv.  The  planters  were  hopelessly  in  debt  to  the 
British  merchants.  Gmjent  political  theories 
in  the  colonies  and  the  economic  interests_j&f  the 
planters  were  in  harmony.  \ 


CHAPTER  II 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 

The  bulwarks  of  loyalism  were  gradually  dis¬ 
integrated  by  economic  forces,  yet  many  conser¬ 
vatives  persisted  in  their  attachment  to  the  mother 
country.  There  were  possibilities  of  a  strong 
loyalist  party,  but  skilful  leadership,  toleration, 
and  imagination  were  essential.  The  last  colonial 
governor,  John  Murray,  Earl  of  Dunmore,  pos¬ 
sessed  none  of  these  qualities.  He  was  stubborn, 
narrow-minded,  and  indiscreet.  His  policy  alien¬ 
ated  the  support  of  the  ultra-conservatives;  dis¬ 
like  and  distrust  of  the  royal  representative  placed 
the  radicals  in  control  and  sealed  the  fate  of  the 
loyalist  party  in  Virginia. 

Revolutionary  propaganda  took  root  slowly 
among  the  conservatives  in  the  colony.  During 
the  decade  preceding  1775,  the  Virginia  assembly 
periodically  passed  resolutions  upholding  their 
rights  as  Englishmen  and  drank  toasts  to  the  king, 
his  ministers,  and  the  royal  governor.  Each  pro¬ 
test  became  more  emphatic,  but  the  toasts  were 
never  omitted.  The  assembly  of  March,  1773,  the 
last  assembly  in  Virginia  to  enact  legislation  ap¬ 
proved  by  a  royal  governor,  was  prorogued.  It 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


31 


was  the  beginning  of  the  end.  The  next  session 
ended  yet  more  abruptly.  In  May,  1774,  news  of 
the  Boston  Port  Bill  reached  Virginia.  Robert 
Carter  Nicholas  proposed  to  the  assembly  that 
June  1,  the  day  the  bill  was  to  become  effective, 
be  observed  as  a  day  of  fasting.  On  May  26 
Governor  Dunmore,  angry  at  the  proceedings,  dis¬ 
solved  the  assembly  and  made  his  way  to  the  fron¬ 
tier  to  drive  back  the  Shawnee  Indians.  The  day 
following  the  dissolution  of  the  assembly,  the 
members  met  in  a  tavern  at  Williamsburg  and 
appointed  a  committee  of  correspondence  to  con¬ 
sult  with  the  other  colonies.1  A  few  days  later, 
while  many  delegates  were  yet  in  Williamsburg, 
news  arrived  of  the  determined  opposition  of  Bos¬ 
ton.  A  convention  in  the  colony  was  called  for 
August  to  elect  delegates  to  a  general  congress 
to  meet  in  Philadelphia.  In  this  convention,  as 
in  the  convention  that  assembled  the  following 
March,  the  conservatives  were  in  control.  “Our 
patriots  Peyton  Randolph,  the  Lees,  Robert  Car¬ 
ter  Nicholas,  and  Pendleton”,  wrote  Jefferson, 
“stopped  at  the  half-way  house  of  John  Dickin¬ 
son.”2 

But  events  moved  rapidly  in  the  spring  of  1775 ; 
fighting  had  taken  place  in  New  England;  Lord 

1  Lingley,  Transition  in  Virginia,  ch.  ii. 

’Jefferson,  Writings,  I.  12. 


32 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Dunmore  became  alarmed  and  ordered  gunpowder 
to  be  removed  from  the  powder  house  to  a  ship 
of  war.  The  radicals,  led  by  Patrick  Henry, 
threatened  the  Governor  with  the  militia,  but  the 
conservatives  preserved  peace.  When  the  dele¬ 
gates  assembled  in  May  in  response  to  the  Gover¬ 
nor’s  summons,  the  militia  also  appeared.  Dun- 
more  offered  the  assembly  the  conciliatory  meas¬ 
ures  of  Lord  North,  but  these  were  refused.  The 
Governor,  fearing  for  his  personal  safety,  took 
refuge  on  board  a  British  ship  at  Yorktown. 
Later,  thinking  Yorktown  and  its  vicinity  an  un¬ 
safe  place  for  a  royal  governor  and  his  family, 
Dunmore  established  his  headquarters  at  Gosport, 
a  village  on  the  Elizabeth  River  not  far  from 
Norfolk.  The  assembly  sanctioned  the  action  of 
the  extra-legal  conventions  of  August,  1774,  and 
March,  1775.  A  third  convention  in  July,  1775, 
called  for  two  regiments  of  militia,  appointed  a 
conservative  committee  of  safety,  and  ordered  an 
election.  The  radicals  won  their  first  victory  in 
excluding  all  dissenting  clergymen  and  teachers 
from  participation  in  this  election.  The  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  colony  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
committee  of  safety  during  the  absence  of  the 
Governor.3 

3  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  15,  55-60. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


33 


Loyalism  predominated  in  two  sections  of  the 
colony :  Norfolk,  in  the  extreme  southeast,  and 
about  Fort  Pitt,  in  the  extreme  northwest.  Nor¬ 
folk,  a  town  of  six  thousand  people,  was  the  com¬ 
mercial  center  of  the  colony.  Many  of  the  resi¬ 
dents  were  un-Americanized  Scottish  merchants, 
who,  as  factors  and  agents  for  British  trading 
houses,  controlled  the  trade  of  the  colony.  They 
had  no  interest  in  the  constitutional  quarrel  be¬ 
tween  the  colony  and  the  mother  country;  their 
great  desire  was  peace,  harmony,  and  good  busi¬ 
ness.  The  commercial  policy  of  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  the  colonies  in  the  North  were 
attempting  to  break  down,  protected  their  trade. 
These  merchants  had  nothing  in  common  with  the 
radicals,  who  proposed  to  stop  payments  due  them 
from  the  planters.  The  continental  association 
was  injurious  to  their  business,  and  they  were  re¬ 
luctant  to  obey  its  regulations.  The  committee  of 
safety  for  Norfolk  informed  the  convention  in 
July,  1775,  that  non-importation  and  non-expor¬ 
tation  would  bring  great  distress  upon  a  town 
almost  entirely  dependent  upon  trade.4  The  mer¬ 
chants  of  Norfolk  protested  and  petitioned  the 
assembly  for  relief,  but  the  petitioners  were  se- 

4  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV,  51. 


34 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


verely  censured  and  the  petition  dismissed.  Sev¬ 
eral  merchants  were  summoned  before  the  local 
committee  of  Isle  of  Wight  for  not  respecting  the 
rules  of  the  association.5 *  Robert  Shedden,  a 
Scottish  merchant  at  Norfolk,  in  violation  of  the 
non-importation  agreement,  sent  orders  to  An¬ 
drew  Lynn,  of  Glasgow,  in  November,  1775.®  The 
committee  of  Accomac  declared  Arthur  Upshur 
out  of  favor  with  the  country  and  fined  him  a 
hundred  pounds  for  disobeying  rules  of  the  asso¬ 
ciation.7  George  Perdue  found  himself  in  con¬ 
siderable  difficulty  for  selling  needles  for  double 
the  price  usually  charged.8 

Among  these  loyal  merchants  at  Norfolk,  Lord 
Dunmore  sought  refuge  in  June,  1775.  He  had 
with  him  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  regular  sol¬ 
diers,  whom  he  thought  reliable.  With  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  “Mr.  Wormley,  Mr.  Corbin,  Rev.  Mr. 
Camm,  Mr.  Byrd  and  the  Attorney  General,”  there 
were  none  who  had  been  prominent  in  the  govern¬ 
ment  whom  he  could  trust.9  The  merchants,  how- 

5  Proceedings  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  Isle  of  Wight,  pp. 
42,  43. 

*  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  51. 

1  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1776,  p.  110. 

8  Proceedings  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  Isle  of  Wight,  pp. 
42,  43. 

8  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  June  25,  1775,  Public  Record  Office, 
C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


35 


ever,  openly  supplied  the  exiled  Governor  with 
provisions.10 

Fort  Pitt,  in  the  extreme  northwest,  was  a 
frontier  trading  post  claimed  by  Virginia  and 
Pennsylvania.  After  his  war  against  the  Shawnee 
Indians,  Dunmore  had  placed  Dr.  John  Connolly 
in  charge  of  Virginia’s  interest  about  the  fort. 
Connolly  followed  up  Dunmore’s  victories  and 
made  a  treaty  with  the  Indians.11  Of  greater  im¬ 
portance  to  the  royal  government  was  the  loyalism 
Connolly  probably  kept  alive  about  Fort  Pitt. 

10  The  House  of  Delegates  had  twenty-two  merchants  brought 
before  it  in  the  spring  of  1775  for  trading  with  Dunmore.  Dun- 
more  to  Dartmouth,  June  25,  1775,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O., 
5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

11  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  78-79 ; 
54-75.  Connolly  had  experienced  great  difficulties  with  the  Penn¬ 
sylvania  authorities;  they  arrested  him  on  June  21  (1775),  but 
he  was  released  before  June  29.  This  arrest  had  nothing  to  do 
with  Connolly’s  loyalty.  Some  inhabitants  from  West  Augusta, 
after  Dunmore’s  flight,  had  petitioned  the  Continental  Congress  to 
erect  a  government  over  the  western  country.  This  petition  was 
sent  to  Virginia  by  one  of  her  delegates  in  Congress,  and  Vir¬ 
ginia  immediately  took  steps  to  conclude  a  peace  with  the  Indians. 
James  Wood  was  sent  by  that  colony  to  summon  the  Indians, 
but  already,  before  the  arrival  of  Wood,  Connolly,  in  conjunction 
with  the  committee  from  West  Augusta,  had  held  a  conference 
with  the  Indians  (June  19-July  6)  and  concluded  a  treaty.  There 
is  no  convincing  evidence  of  Connolly’s  disloyalty  to  Virginia 
prior  to  his  visit  to  Dunmore  in  August,  1775,  unless  it  be  an 
address  delivered  to  Dunmore  from  the  frontier.  This  address 
has  no  date,  but  was  drawn  up  at  Fort  Pitt  and  bears  Connolly’s 
name;  Connolly  was  not  at  Fort  Pitt  after  his  visit  to  Dunmore, 
and  the  address  must  have  been  prepared  before  he  left  the 
frontier  in  July,  1775.  The  Pennsylvania  authorities  were  antag¬ 
onistic  to  Connolly  as  an  agent  from  Virginia  and  not  as  a  loy¬ 
alist.  Connolly’s  own  account  of  his  activities  ( Pennsylvania 
Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XII,  XIII)  was  written  to 
secure  a  pension. 


36 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


In  July,  1775,  Connolly  left  the  northwest  to 
visit  Dunmore.  He  wrote  to  George  Booth,  a 
member  of  the  Virginia  convention  from  West 
Augusta  County,  that  he  hoped  his  treaty  would 
be  satisfactory  to  the  convention  at  Richmond,  “as 
it  has  been  particularly  so  to  the  inhabitants  of  our 
country.”  The  Pennsylvania  agents,  he  wrote, 
have  done  everything  to  “prejudice  my  character 
and  depreciate  the  character  of  my  public  service. 
.  .  .  It  has  been  diligently  propagated  through  the 
country  that  I,  as  a  ministerial  tool,  would  be  ex¬ 
tremely  solicitous  to  forward  their  designs  and 
should  be  ready  to  support  every  measure  which 
Lord  Dunmore  might  recommend  to  me;  I  have 
only  to  assure  you  that  such  insinuations  are  mali¬ 
cious  and  foreign  to  truth.”12  Connolly  acknowl¬ 
edged  that  he  was  under  obligations  to  Lord 
Dunmore,13  but  “such  things  will  go  no  further 
with  me  than  they  ought  to.  I  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  a  ministerial  office  and  a  friend.”  He  asked 
that  he  be  permitted  to  visit  Lord  Dunmore  “on 
personal  business.” 

In  the  British  Public  Record  Office  there  is  an 
address  from  John  Campbell,  John  Cannon,  John 
Connolly,  Edward  Ward,  Alexander  McKee, 
George  Gibson,  Simon  Girty,  Alexander  Ross, 

“  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  78. 

13  Ibid.  Dunmore  had  given  Connolly  several  grants  for  lands. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


37 


Benjamin  Harrison,  and  “several  hundred  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  transmountain  Augusta”  to  Lord  Dun- 
more  assuring  him  of  their  appreciation  of  the 
great  service  he  had  rendered  the  frontier.  They 
were  not,  the  address  declares,  misled  by  wild 
rumors,  but  were  loyal  to  him  and  to  the  king. 
Dunmore  sent  this  address  to  Dartmouth  Septem¬ 
ber  24,  1775.14  It  is  possible  that  Connolly  deliv¬ 
ered  it  to  Dunmore  when  he  visited  him  in  August. 

Dr.  Connolly  was  on  board  ship  with  Dunmore 
several  weeks,  and  while  there  they  probably 
worked  out  the  “Connolly  Plot”.15  Connolly  was 
to  raise  a  regiment  of  militia  among  his  own  and 
Dunmore’s  friends  about  Fort  Pitt,  and  Alexan¬ 
der  McKee,  an  Indian  trader,  was  to  raise  a  regi¬ 
ment  of  Indians.  Together  they  were  to  march 
to  Alexandria,  Virginia.  Dunmore,  with  the  loy¬ 
alists  he  could  muster  in  the  east,  proposed  to  join 
Connolly’s  forces  on  the  Potomac  and  thus  to  sever 
the  northern  from  the  southern  colonies.  Con¬ 
nolly  left  Dunmore  to  lay  the  plan  before  General 
Gage  in  Boston  and  to  induce  Gage  to  send  troops 
and  supplies  to  aid  Dunmore. 

Dunmore  proceeded  with  his  plan  to  join  Con¬ 
nolly  on  the  Potomac.  He  wrote  Dartmouth,  Oc- 

14  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  September  24,  1775,  Public  Record 
Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

15  For  details  of  the  “Plot”  see  R.  G.  Thwaites  and  L.  P.  Kel¬ 
logg,  Revolution  in  Upper  Ohio,  p.  136. 


38 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


tober  5,  that  he  was  confident  he  could  secure  all 
the  volunteers  needed  if  he  erected  the  king's  stan¬ 
dard,  but  he  was  waiting  until  arms  arrived  before 
he  called  for  enlistments.18  He  employed  effective 
methods  to  quiet  the  opposition  of  the  local  press : 
“The  public  prints  of  this  little  dirty  Borough  of 
Norfolk  has  for  sometime  past  been  wholly  em¬ 
ployed  in  exciting  the  minds  of  all  ranks  of  people 
in  the  spirit  of  sedition  and  rebellion,  by  the  gross¬ 
est  misrepresentation  of  facts,  both  public  and 
private.”  One  Saturday  noon,  in  early  October, 
Dunmore  sent  a  small  detachment  of  soldiers  on 
shore,  seized  the  press,  paper,  ink,  and  two  of  the 
printers.  The  local  militia  was  called  out,  but 
those  who  responded  showed  no  disposition  to 
fight;  a  crowd  of  citizens  watched  the  seizure 
without  attempting  to  prevent  it.  Press  and 
printers  were  transferred  to  Dunmore’s  service 
on  board  his  ship.  The  mayor  and  aldermen  sent 
a  mild  protest  to  the  marooned  Governor.17  In 
fact,  sentiment  in  Norfolk  favored  Dunmore;  a 
meeting  was  held,  and  he  was  invited  to  occupy 
the  town.18  The  association  had  worked  so  dis¬ 
astrously  for  the  merchants  that  a  majority  of  the 

16  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  October  5,  1775,  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

17  Ibid. 

18  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  p.  66. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


39 


people  in  Norfolk  had  no  sympathy  with  the  pa¬ 
triot  assembly  at  Williamsburg. 

The  patriots  at  Williamsburg  distrusted  the 
merchants  at  Norfolk  and  prepared  to  send  troops 
to  the  disaffected  town.  The  local  militia  of  Prin¬ 
cess  Anne  and  Norfolk  Counties  were  assembled 
at  Kempsville,  the  county  seat  of  Princess  Anne. 
It  was  rumored  that  aid  was  being  sent  to  them 
from  North  Carolina.19  Dunmore,  adding  a  few 
Negroes  and  a  score  of  Scottish  clerks  to  his  regu¬ 
lars,  proceeded  against  the  three  hundred  colonials 
at  Kempsville.  The  patriots,  aware  of  Dunmore’s 
approach,  placed  their  troops  in  ambush,  and  Dun- 
more  walked  into  the  trap.  The  ill-disciplined 
local  militia  did  not  open  fire,  but  fled  to  the  woods, 
when  they  might  easily  have  gained  a  victory.  A 
few,  it  is  said,  were  too  drunk  to  run  away  and 
were  taken  prisoners.20  This  victory  greatly  en¬ 
couraged  the  loyalists.  Dunmore  proclaimed 
martial  law  in  the  colony  and  set  up  the  king’s 
standard.21  The  next  day  three  hundred  took  the 
oath  of  allegiance  at  Kempsville ;  a  few  days  later 
five  hundred  subscribed  at  Norfolk.  The  stan¬ 
dard  was  set  up  in  Princess  Anne,  Norfolk,  and 
Nansemond  Counties,  and  it  was  reported  that  up- 

19  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  130-36. 

“John  Page  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  Jefferson  Papers,  XI.  51. 

91  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  247. 


40 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


ward  of  three  thousand  subscribed  to  the  oath.22 

Shortly  after  the  victory  at  Kempsville,  Dr. 
Connolly,  prevented  by  military  operations  from 
taking  a  northern  route  to  Fort  Pitt  after  his  con¬ 
sultation  with  General  Gage  at  Boston,  as  had 
been  planned,  arrived  in  Virginia  by  sea.  His 
reports  from  Boston  were  favorable.  The  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Princess  Anne  County  drew  up  resolu¬ 
tions  pledging  themselves  to  support  the  crown 
and  Dunmore  with  the  last  drop  of  their  blood.23 
The  exiled  Governor,  confident  of  success,  deter¬ 
mined  to  act  with  vigor.  Connolly  was  given  a 
commission  as  lieutenant  colonel ;  Dr.  John  F.  D. 
Smythe  was  appointed  a  surgeon  and  Allen  Cam¬ 
eron  a  lieutenant  in  the  regiment  Connolly  was  to 
raise — The  Royal  Foresters.  On  November  18 
the  three  were  hurried  off  to  Detroit  to  execute 
their  part  of  the  plan.  Dunmore’s  small  boats 
sailed  boldly  up  and  down  the  rivers  and  bays, 
plundering  plantations  and  storehouses  and  se¬ 
ducing  Negroes  to  leave  their  masters.  Little 
discrimination  was  made  between  the  loyal  and 
the  disaffected.24  On  November  17  he  offered 
freedom  to  slaves  who  would  join  his  forces.  He 
organized  two  regiments  of  militia,  The  Queen’s 

”  Intercepted  Letters,  Papers  of  Continental  Congress,  II.  398. 

”  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XV.  18. 

“  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  ch.  ii. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA  41 

Own  Loyal  Virginia  Regiment  and  a  Negro  regi¬ 
ment  of  runaway  slaves,  Lord  Dunmore’s  Ethio¬ 
pian  Regiment.  Even  the  conservatives  were 
alarmed. 

Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  of  the  “conservative 
household”,  recommended  to  the  assembly  that 
it  would  be  well  to  secure  hostages.25  The  con¬ 
servative  committee  of  safety  at  Williamsburg 
was  forced  to  act.  Two  regiments  of  militia  were 
ordered  to  Norfolk;  North  Carolina  promised  to 
send  a  third.  Lord  Dunmore  fortified  himself 
with  some  five  hundred  troops  at  Great  Bridge, 
where  each  regiment  must  pass  to  reach  Norfolk. 
Here,  on  December  11,  Dunmore  was  defeated 
and  forced  to  fall  back  to  Norfolk.26  The  pa¬ 
triot  forces  entered  the  loyalist  town  on  Decem¬ 
ber  14  and  forced  Dunmore  to  return  to  his  ships 
in  the  harbor. 

On  January  1,  1776,  Dunmore  received  one 
hundred  and  thirty-four  soldiers  and  three  thous¬ 
and  stand  of  arms,  part  from  General  Gage  and 
part  from  St.  Augustine.27  Encouraged  by  rein¬ 
forcements,  Dunmore  fired  upon  the  patriot 
troops,  who  were  celebrating  the  New  Year  by  a 

25  Robert  Carter  Nicholas  to  the  Assembly,  November  25,  1775, 
Jefferson  Papers,  II.  191. 

2I!  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  December  23,  1775,  Public  Record 
Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


42 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


blusterous  parade  in  the  loyalist  town.  They  re¬ 
turned  the  fire.28  Dunmore  consulted  with  Cap¬ 
tain  Bellew,  a  naval  officer,  and  decided  to  set  fire 
to  the  warehouses  on  the  docks  that  patriots  used 
as  ambush  to  molest  the  British  ships.  Dunmore 
set  the  precedent  of  firing  Norfolk,  a  town  ar¬ 
dently  in  sympathy  with  him;  the  patriots  spared 
nothing  in  the  disaffected  district.  Fifty  houses, 
valued  at  £3648,  were  destroyed  by  fire  from  Dun- 
more’s  ships;  863  houses,  valued  at  £110,807  and 
personal  property  valued  at  £8000  were  destroyed 
by  the  patriot  troops.  In  February  the  remain¬ 
ing  416  houses  were  burned  by  order  of  the  con¬ 
vention  to  prevent  Dunmore  from  using  Norfolk 
as  a  base.29  The  loyalist  town  was  devastated;  a 
royal  governor  had  hurled  the  first  fire  brand. 

That  part  of  the  “Connolly  Plot”  which  was  en¬ 
trusted  to  Dr.  Connolly  and  his  lieutenants  came 
to  a  more  abrupt  failure  than  the  part  Dunmore 
had  undertaken.  A  week  after  leaving  Dunmore, 
the  three  were  captured  in  Frederick  County, 
Maryland.  Connolly  was  brought  before  the  Con¬ 
tinental  Congress  and  imprisoned.  Dr.  Smythe 
made  his  escape  from  the  Frederick  County  jail, 
but  was  later  captured  near  Fort  Pitt  and  taken  to 

28  Ibid.,  January  4,  1776. 

20  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates  1835,  Appendix.  A  full 
report  of  the  losses  at  Norfolk  in  1776. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


43 


Philadelphia.30  After  the  imprisonment  of  Con¬ 
nolly  and  the  failure  of  Dunmore,  Alexander  Mc¬ 
Kee,  commissioned  to  raise  the  Indians  for  par¬ 
ticipation  in  the  ‘‘Plot”,  went  to  Fort  Detroit.  In 
June,  1776,  John  Nevill,  in  charge  of  the  Virginia 
forces  garrisoning  Fort  Pitt,  wrote  the  committee 
of  safety  that  “some  of  the  leading  men  in  this 
quarter  were  strongly  suspected  of  disaffection  to 
the  common  cause.”  The  arrival  in  the  early  sum¬ 
mer  of  two  ships  with  one  hundred  and  fifty  regu¬ 
lars  and  a  supply  of  arms  for  the  British  garrison 
at  Fort  Detroit  aroused  the  general  fear  that  Mc¬ 
Kee  and  the  Indians  were  to  harrass  the  frontier.31 
But  McKee  became  interested  in  land  speculation, 
and  the  “Connolly  Plot”  came  to  an  end. 
^Dunmore  continued  his  plundering  expeditions 
throughout  the  spring  and  summer  of  1776.  Many 
Negroes  left  the  plantations  to  take  advantage  of 
his  proclamation  of  November  17,  1775.32  Our 
typical  conservative,  Landon  Carter,  who  believed 
the  British  government  the  best  on  earth,  found 
his  vocabulary  inadequate  to  express  his  contempt 

for  “that  D - Dunmore”  after  ten  of  his  slaves 

had  taken  silver  from  his  house,  provisions  from 

30  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  IV.  394,  415,  445. 

31  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XVI.  53-55. 

32  Robert  Carter  Nicholas  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  November  25, 
1775,  Jefferson  Papers,  II.  191. 


44 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


his  storehouse,  a  new  boat  from  the  wharf,  and 
had  gone  to  seek  their  fortunes  with  the  exiled 
Governor.33  He  was  “compelled  to  independ¬ 
ency.”  Edmund  Pendleton  and  Robert  Nicholas, 
conservatives,  denounced  Dunmore  and  all  his 
works.34  Lord  Dunmore  had  forfeited  all  chances 
of  bringing  the  conservatives  into  the  loyalist 
party. 

Rewards  for  loyalism  in  Virginia  were  mea¬ 
ger.  Dunmore  was  unable  to  supply  provisions 
for  those  who  followed  him  from  Norfolk  to  the 
ships.  Levin  Powell  wrote  from  Williamsburg 
in  1776  that  “the  women  and  children  whose  be¬ 
havior  makes  them  think  it  dangerous  to  remain 
on  shore  and  are  now  on  board  Dunmore’s  ships 
have  been  obliged  to  send  to  our  officers  begging 
provisions  and  firewood.”35  The  lot  of  Andrew 
Sprowle  was  extremely  hard.  Sprowle  was  one 
of  the  wealthiest  men  in  Virginia  and  for  thirty- 
six  years  president  of  the  court  of  Virginia  mer¬ 
chants.  He  had  provided  barracks  for  the  royal 
soldiers  when  Dunmore  was  in  possession  of  Nor¬ 
folk.  When  the  patriots  entered  the  town  in  De¬ 
cember,  1775,  Sprowle  took  refuge  on  board  one 

33  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XVI.  268.  Diary  of 
Landon  Carter. 

34  Edmund  Pendleton  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  Jefferson  Papers, 
II.  285. 

35  Randolph  Macon  College,  Branch  Papers,  I.  34. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA  -  45 


of  his  vessels  in  company  with  Dunmore.  The 
patriots  destroyed  his  property  in  Gosport  and 
Portsmouth  and  took  possession  of  his  plantation, 
“Souls  Point”.  “These  distresses  were  too  much 
for  Mr.  Sprowle’s  advanced  age.  He  fell  a  sacri¬ 
fice,  May  29,  1776,  still  on  board  a  vessel  at  Guin’s 
Island,  Virginia.”  His  wife,  who  had  accompan¬ 
ied  him,  obtained  permission  from  Dunmore  to 
visit  her  son,  a  prisoner  in  the  patriot  jail  at  Hali¬ 
fax,  North  Carolina.  The  Williamsburg  commit¬ 
tee  of  safety  refused  her  permit  and  sent  her  back 
to  Dunmore,  who  would  not  “suffer  her  on  board 
her  own  vessel.”  After  being  driven  back  and 
forth  between  Dunmore  and  the  patriots,  Cap¬ 
tain  Hamond  secured  her  passage  to  Glasgow. 
She  was  placed  on  the  Virginia  pension  list  for 
one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  a  year,  but  “Lord 
Dunmore  wantonly  struck  her  off  for  no  reason 
that  she  can  learn.”36  The  undestroyed  Sprowle 
property  in  Virginia  was  later  sequestered  and 
sold.  Dunmore  gave  Mrs.  Sprowle  no  protection 
in  Virginia  or  aid  in  England. 

Local  and  central  committees  of  safety  and  the 
military  authorities  were  entrusted  with  safe¬ 
guarding  patriot  interests  against  the  disaffected. 

36  Petition  of  Katherine  Sprowle  to  Thomas  Townsend,  Esq., 
July  22,  1782,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1344,  Library  of 
Congress  Transcripts. 


46 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


The  local  committees  about  Norfolk,  either  be¬ 
cause  of  loyal  proclivities  or  helplessness  to  act 
against  a  majority,  were  lenient  in  their  treatment 
of  the  loyalists.  The  local  committee  of  safety 
arrested  John  Goodrich,  who  had  deserted  the 
Virginia  service  and  undertaken  to  supply  Dun- 
more  with  powder.  Although  there  could  have 
been  no  question  of  his  guilt,  he  was  given  his 
liberty.  “Queer  Committees  of  our  safety,”  ob¬ 
served  Landon  Carter.37  On  April  3,  1776, 
Robert  Shedden,  son-in-law  of  Goodrich,  was 
arrested  and  brought  before  the  Norfolk  com¬ 
mittee  and  charged  with  communicating  with 
Dunmore;  he  was  acquitted.  By  order  of  the 
Williamsburg  committee  of  safety,  he  was  re¬ 
arrested  the  first  of  May  and  placed  in  jail,  “be¬ 
cause  by  his  conduct  he  appears  unfriendly  to 
America.”38 

The  central  committee  at  Williamsburg  and  the 
assembly  were  more  positive  in  their  policy  to¬ 
wards  the  loyalists,  though  not  harsh.  In  De¬ 
cember,  1775,  the  assembly  offered  pardon  to  any¬ 
one  who  had  given  aid  to  the  enemy,  if  he  would 
take  an  oath  of  allegience  to  the  provisional  gov¬ 
ernment  within  two  months;  if  he  failed  to  take 
the  oath,  he  would  be  liable  to  arrest  and  his 

37  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XVII.  34. 

38  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XVI.  40. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


47 


estate  to  seizure.  The  execution  of  the  law  de¬ 
volved  upon  local  committees,  and  these  commit¬ 
tees  were  lenient.39  In  the  summer  of  1775,  twen¬ 
ty-two  citizens,  among  them  Neil  Jamieson  and 
Archibald  Ritchie,  were  summoned  before  the 
assembly,  but  they  gave  satisfactory  account  of 
their  conduct  and  were  dismissed.40  In  May,  1776, 
thirteen  white  men  and  twelve  Negroes,  arrested 
in  Norfolk,  were  sent  to  Williamsburg  for  trial. 
Their  cases  were  heard  by  the  convention  in  June; 
the  Negroes  were  sent  to  work  in  the  lead  mines 
of  the  state;  several  of  the  whites,  including  the 
Goodriches,  were  given  a  parole,  and  others  were 
discharged.41 

The  military  authorities,  upon  their  occupation 
of  the  disaffected  district  about  Norfolk,  were  not 
so  lenient  with  the  loyalists.  The  house  of  Neil 
Jamieson,  who  had  acted  as  a  supply  agent  for 
Dunmore,4'  was  deliberately  burned  by  order  of 
General  Lee  as  an  example  to  any  who  might  sup¬ 
port  Dunmore.43  The  military  authorities  recom¬ 
mended  that  the  residents  be  moved  to  the  interior 

3B  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  101. 

40  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth.  June  25,  1775,  Public  Record  Office, 
C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

41  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XV.  414; 
XVII.  112.  Journal  of  the  Virginia  Convention  1776,  p.  97. 

42  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  January  4,  1776,  Public  Record  Of¬ 
fice,  C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

43  Eckenrode,  The  Revolution  in  Virginia,  pp.  91-92. 


48 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


of  the  country  to  prevent  any  intercourse  between 
them  and  Dunmore’s  ships.  The  inhabitants,  how¬ 
ever,  protested,  pleading  the  “obvious  difficulties 
that  would  attend  removal  of  four  or  five  hundred 
at  one  time”  over  the  bad  roads,  and  feigned  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  patriot  cause.44  The  recommen¬ 
dation  was  carried  into  execution  with  little  vigor. 

The  loyalists  were  crushed.  Dunmore  had  de¬ 
serted  them;  patriots  harrassed  them  on  every 
hand.  Their  city  homes  were  destroyed,  and  they 
were  driven  from  their  plantations.  Some  char¬ 
tered  the  ship  Albion  and  went  to  England;43 
others  took  passage  to  Scotland  on  merchant  ships. 
Some  went  to  the  West  Indies.  Many  merchants 
sought  safety  with  the  British  army  in  the  North, 
directing  that  goods  they  had  ordered  for  Vir¬ 
ginia  be  delivered  to  them  there.  Neil  Jamieson 
was  a  considerable  trader  in  New  York  through¬ 
out  the  Revolution.46  One  hundred  and  twelve 
Scottish  merchants  from  Virginia  opened  shops  in 
Philadelphia  when  the  British  occupied  that  city.47 

Few  Virginia  loyalists  performed  active  ser¬ 
vice  for  the  king  during  the  war.  After  the  de¬ 
feat  at  Great  Bridge,  Dunmore’s  loyalist  regi- 

44  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XVII.  173-5. 

45  Journal  of  the  Hoxtse  of  Delegates,  May  1777,  p.  97. 

44  Stevens,  Manuscripts  in  British  Archives  Relating  to  America, 
1773-1783,  XII.  1241. 

47  W.  H.  Siebert,  Loyalists  in  Pennsylvania,  p.  45. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


49 


ment,  The  Queen’s  Own  Loyal  Virginia,  was  in¬ 
corporated  with  the  Queen’s  Rangers.  Captain 
John  Saunders,48  John  Agnew,49  a  former  chap¬ 
lain  of  the  Suffolk  Parish,  and  his  son,  were  the 
only  Virginia  loyalists  to  attain  distinction  in 
military  service. 

The  loyalists  who  used  discretion  remained  in 
Virginia  throughout  the  war.  Archibald  Ritchie, 
father  of  the  noted  Virginia  editor,  did  not  leave 
the  state,  although  several  times  summoned  before 
local  committees  and  once  before  the  assembly  to 
answer  for  his  loyalist  sentiment.  Richard  Cor¬ 
bin  lived  quietly  on  his  plantation,  unmolested, 
while  his  son  was  in  the  British  service.  Ralph 
Wormley,  whose  loyalism  was  well  known,  re¬ 
mained  at  his  plantation,  “Rosegill”.  William 
Cunningham  and  Company,  British  merchants, 
kept  an  agent  in  the  state  throughout  the  war. 
Such  instances,  however,  were  exceptional ;  by 
1777  those  most  active  in  the  loyalist  cause  had 
departed  from  the  state.  Dunmore  had  failed 
to  furnish  them  even  the  support  that  he  could 
have  given,  and,  as  the  agent  of  the  Virginia 
loyalists  later  reported,  “for  those  who  remained 
in  Virginia  nothing  was  possible  but  a  submission 

48  E.  A.  Jones,  Journal  of  Alexander  Chesney,  p.  108. 

49  Lorenzo  Sabine,  Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolution,  I. 
154-155. 


50 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


and  acquiescence”  to  the  patriot  government. 
They  had  been  so  betrayed  by  Dunmore  that  “they 
were  ever  cautious  of  their  action.”50 

Despite  the  neglect  of  the  loyalists  by  Dunmore, 
many  who  remained  in  Virginia  were  ready  to  as¬ 
sist  the  king’s  cause  if  the  king’s  troops  were  near. 
They  had  no  occasion  to  assist  the  British  until 
the  theater  of  war  was  shifted  to  the  south.  At 
the  time  General  Phillips  and  General  Arnold 
passed  through  Virginia  with  their  armies,  at¬ 
tempt  was  made  to  arouse  the  loyalists,  especially 
those  on  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland  and  Vir¬ 
ginia.  In  the  vicinity  of  Petersburg,  a  number  of 
inhabitants  drew  up  a  petition  to  the  Virginia 
assembly  setting  forth  the  distress  of  the  country 
“and  the  expediency  of  accepting  the  terms  then 
held  out  by  the  British.”51  However,  the  dis¬ 
patches  from  the  Eastern  Shore  were  intercepted 
in  Maryland,  and  the  plans  came  to  naught. 

The  spirits  and  the  hopes  of  the  loyalists  were 
again  revived  upon  the  approach  of  the  armies 
from  the  south.  Agents  from  Governor  Wright 
of  Georgia  and  Colonel  Brown,  commander  of  the 
Georgia  loyalists,  became  active  on  the  frontier. 
In  the  summer  of  1779  the  report  was  spread  in 

50  Colonel  Upham’s  report  on  the  Virginia  loyalists  to  Gov¬ 
ernor  Franklin,  November  6,  1781,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5, 
175,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 

61  Ibid. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


51 


the  back-country  that  the  colonies  had  been  sold 
to  France,  and  the  people  were  returning  to  their 
allegiance  to  the  British  king.  John  Henderson, 
in  what  is  now  Kentucky,  was  told  that  already 
sixty  thousand  colonials  had  joined  the  king’s 
army.  Agents,  purporting  to  have  come  from 
John  Robinson,  offered  six  shillings  six  pence 
:  sterling  per  day  and  four  hundred  and  fifty  acres 
of  land  with  the  quitrent  free  for  twenty-one 
>  years  to  all  who  would  enlist.  Those  who  refused 
to  enlist  were  to  be  seized  by  the  loyalists  and  sent 
to  the  British  in  Georgia.52  Some  enlisted.  The 
British  planned  that  these  enlisted  loyalists, 
joined  by  others  recruited  in  North  and  South 
Carolina,  should  capture  the  lead  mines  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  then  proceed  to  Winchester.  There,  in 
conjunction  with  the  loyalists  from  Detroit,  they 
would  release  the  British  and  German  prisoners 
confined  under  the  convention  of  Saratoga.55  But 
the  danger  from  the  loyalists  on  the  Virginia 
frontier  was  never  great.  They  needed  a  British 
base  from  which  to  operate;  Kentucky  was  mid¬ 
way  between  the  British  posts  on  the  Lakes  and 
the  back-country  of  the  Carolinas  to  the  south. 

62  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XXVI.  373. 

62  Ibid.,  p.  376.  There  were  between  seven  and  eight  hundred 
British  and  about  fifteen  hundred  German  prisoners  at  Winchester. 
Jefferson  to  Huntington,  November  3,  1780.  Papers  of  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress,  LXXI. 


52 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


The  British  agents,  for  the  most  part  Indian 
traders,  were  able  to  do  little  more  than  keep  the 
Indians  in  a  hostile  mood.54  In  the  summer  of 
1779  Colonel  Preston  was  sent  to  suppress  a 
loyalist  uprising  on  the  Monongahela.55  The  fol¬ 
lowing  year,  Preston,  with  the  aid  of  Captain 
Lynch,  so  effectually  quelled  an  uprising  in  the 
southwestern  counties  that  no  further  attempt 
was  made  to  arouse  loyalist  sentiment.56  The 
number  of  loyalists  on  the  Virginia  frontier  could 
never  have  been  large;  Dunmore,  in  1777,  in  a 
report  to  Dartmouth,  named  only  twelve  persons 
in  the  back-country  who  were  well  disposed  to 
“His  Majesty’s  Government” ;  eight  of  these  were 
at  Fort  Pitt  and  included  such  characters  as  Alex¬ 
ander  McKee,  the  Indian  trader,  and  Alexander 
Ross,  a  Scottish  merchant.57 

In  the  east  there  was  enthusiastic  cooperation 
with  the  British  as  they  advanced  from  the  south. 
Lord  Dunmore  had  joined  the  British  at  Charles¬ 
ton  in  1780,  anticipating  the  restoration  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  to  the  crown  and  his  reassumption  of  the 
governorship.  Loyalists  on  the  Rappahannock 

“Report  of  James  Scott,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  80, 
Library  of  Congress  Transcripts.  Scott  was  an  Indian  trader 
and  British  agent. 

“  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XXVI.  373. 

M  Ibid.,  VII.  6. 

"  Dunmore  to  Dartmouth,  February,  1777,  Public  Record  Office, 
C.  O.,  5,  1353,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


53 


i  thought  the  overthrow  of  the  patriot  party  nearly 
effected.  Middlesex  County,  according  to  report, 
{became  “a  hole  of  Toryism”.  The  “name  of 
AVormley,  Beverley,  Frasier  and  Ritchie  is  ever 
joined  to  that  of  Tory. — Hobbs  Hole  is  a  Tory 
sink.”58  Trade  was  carried  on  with  the  British  who 
came  into  the  Chesapeake ;  Fauntleroy  Dye,  at  one 
time  an  inspector  of  tobacco  in  Richmond,  was 
reported  by  Richard  Henry  Lee  and  Richard 
Parker  for  corresponding  with  the  enemy  and 
holding  meetings  of  disaffected  persons  in  his 
house.  Dye  declared  publicly  that  if  he  was 
drafted  for  the  militia  he  would  join  the  British.59 
He  and  several  of  his  accomplices,  after  offering 
some  resistance,  were  arrested  and  charged  with 
openly  assisting  the  enemy  and  encouraging  deser¬ 
tions.  They  were  sentenced  to  confinement  with¬ 
out  bail  for  the  remainder  of  the  war.60 

In  the  summer  of  1780,  seventy-five  were  con¬ 
fined  in  the  Bedford  County  jail  as  suspected  of 
corresponding  against  the  United  States.61  The 
governor  ordered  Ralph  Wormley,  Jr.,  Phillip 
Grymes,  Simon  Frazer,  Archibald  Ritchie,  and 
seven  other  persons  on  the  Rappahannock  arrested 

68  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  181. 

"Ibid.,  p.  155. 

60  Ibid.,  p.  174. 

“  Virginia  Legislative  Petitions,  in  Virginia  State  Library  Re¬ 
port,  V.  211. 


54 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


and  taken  to  Richmond.62  Reverend  John  Lyons 
of  St.  George  Parish,  Accomac  County,  was  ar¬ 
rested  for  selling  three  hundred  bushels  of  wheal 
to  the  enemy  and  for  “openly  discouraging”  and 
speaking  disrespectfully  of  jthe  American  cause. 
He  was  tried  by  court  martial  and  sentenced  to 
five  years  imprisonment.63 

As  Lord  Cornwallis’  army  approached  Vir¬ 
ginia,  loyalism  in  the  state  took  on  new  life. 
Governor  Jefferson  announced  that  no  neutrality 
would  be  recognized,64  and  Lord  Cornwallis  de¬ 
manded  an  oath  of  allegiance.  Forced  to  choose 
between  the  two,  “Princess  Anne  and  Norfolk 
and  all  Nansemond  below  Suffolk  took  protection” 
from  Cornwallis  by  subscribing  to  the  British 
oath.65  Few  held  out  in  “the  Counties  of  Eliza¬ 
beth  City,  York,  James  City  and  Warwick  when 
these  Counties  were  called  in  by  Cornwallis  to  be 
paroled.”66  Colonel  Upham  reported  “that  if  the 
Standard  had  been  raised  the  probability  is  that 
all  the  Lower  Counties  would  have  come  in.” 
However,  the  standard  was  not  raised,  and,  al- 

ea  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  456. 

“Ibid.,  pp.  305,  340,  344,  350,  362,  509,  511,  544,  586. 

“  Ibid.,  I.  445. 

65  Ibid.,  II.  189-90. 

68  Colonel  Upham’s  report  to  Governor  Franklin,  November  6, 
1781,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  175,  Library  of  Congress 
Transcripts. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


55 


:  though  Cornwallis  demanded  an  oath  of  allegi¬ 
ance,  those  loyalists  who  offered  their  services  to 
his  Majesty’s  armies  were  curtly  refused.67  Prob¬ 
ably  one  hundred  and  fifty  Virginia  loyalists 
sought  protection  with  Cornwallis  and  were  with 
him  when  he  surrendered  at  Yorktown.  He  at¬ 
tempted  to  place  these  loyalists  on  the  same  basis 
in  the  capitulation  as  his  troops,  but  the  Americans 
insisted  that  the  loyalists  were  citizens,  not  sol¬ 
diers,  and  must  be  given  over  to  the  civil  authori¬ 
ties.  The  loyalists,  especially  those  who  had 
joined  Dunmore  at  Great  Bridge,  had  then  taken 
refuge  with  the  British  army  in  the  North  and 
had  now  returned  to  Virginia  with  the  British 
forces,  were  certain  that  their  lot  with  the  civil 
authorities  would  not  be  an  easy  one.  Eight  of 
the  most  notorious  were  set  on  board  the  sloop 
of  war  Bonetta,  which,  according  to  the  terms  of 
capitulation,  was  to  sail  to  New  York  unsearched. 
Other  loyalists  applied  for  passage,  but,  as  they 
did  not  have  the  proper  papers,  the  captain  of  the 
vessel  refused  to  permit  them  on  board.  Several 
received  hints  that  they  were  to  be  badly  used  by 
their  former  fellow  citizens  and  attempted  to  hide 
themselves  on  the  Bonetta,  but  they  were  dis¬ 
covered,  roughly  handled,  and  roundly  cursed  by 


"  Ibid. 


56 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


the  captain,  who  swore  he  could  not  carry  all 
Virginia  to  New  York  on  one  sloop.68 

After  the  surrender  at  Yorktown,  the  civil  au¬ 
thorities  took  no  immediate  steps  to  punish  the 
loyalists.  The  provisioning  and  guarding  British 
troops  taxed  every  resource  of  the  state.  By 
December  17,  1781,  a  million  and  twenty-five 
thousand  pounds  of  depreciated  currency  had  been 
advanced  to  recruiting  officers  to  obtain  guards, 
and  less  than  one  hundred  recruits  enlisted.69  At 
Winchester  the  shelter  was  poor  and  the  guard  in¬ 
sufficient  ;  one  hundred  of  the  enemy  soldiers  hired 
themselves  to  farmers;  some  married  American 
girls  and  applied  for  citizenship,  while  others 
crossed  the  mountains  to  the  frontier.  Two  hun¬ 
dred  Yorktown  prisoners  were  quartered  in  Wil¬ 
liamsburg,  but  no  guard  was  provided.  The  sol¬ 
diers  created  general  alarm  in  the  quiet  old  capi¬ 
tal  by  robbing  stores  for  provisions  and  sometimes 
burning  houses.70  These  disorders  quelled,  atten¬ 
tion  again  turned  to  the  loyalists. 

In  the  fall  of  1781  Colonel  Thomas  Newton  re¬ 
ported  to  Governor  Nelson  that  Norfolk  and 
Princess  Anne  Counties  threatened  to  become  a 
nest  of  loyalists.  Trading  with  the  enemy,  who 

“  Ibid. 

<19  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  546,  672. 

,#  Ibid.,  p.  233;  III.  70,  101. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


57 


had  good  money,  was  more  profitable  than  trad¬ 
ing  with  citizens,  who  had  only  the  Virginia 
currency.  The  loyalists  who  were  paroled  caused 
much  trouble — “many  of  them  are  now  living  in 
affluence  and  have  plenty  and  the  good  men  who 
left  their  homes  are  starving  for  want  of  necessi¬ 
ties.”71  The  loyalists  were  so  numerous  about 
Norfolk  that  the  officers  feared  to  do  their  duty, 
“but  if  examples  are  not  now  made  of  several  who 
have  actually  been  in  arms  with  the  British  every 
person  will  find  it  to  their  advantage  to  be 
Tories.”72  Colonel  William  Wishart  and  Colonel 
Dobney  led  a  crusade  in  Princess  Anne  County 
against  the  returned  loyalists.  Eighteen  were 
arrested  and  jailed  for  treason ;  of  these,  fourteen 
were  accused  of  bearing  arms  against  the  state, 
and  four  of  treasonable  practices.73 

Thirty  loyalists  about  Yorktown  were  arrested 
and  sent  to  the  Richmond  jail  in  December.74 
Two  tavern  keepers,  Richard  Hogg  and  Gabriel 
Galt,  and  two  merchants,  John  Cox  and  Zachariah 
Rowland,  all  of  Richmond,  were  committed  on 
bond  of  one  thousand  pounds  specie  to  appear  for 
trial  before  the  “Supreme  Executive”  on  charge 

11  Ibid.,  II.  542. 

nIbid„  p.  591. 

73  Ibid,,  pp.  611,  626. 

74  Ibid.,  p.  634. 


58  LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 

of  disaffection.75  William  Calderhead,  a  British 
merchant  who  had  enlisted  with  Dunmore,  fought 
with  the  British  at  the  Battle  of  Great  Bridge,  and 
left  Virginia  early  in  the  war,  was  among  the 
refugees  at  Yorktown.  He  was  tried  before  a 
court  in  Chesterfield  County  and  sentenced  to 
parole  at  the  house  of  Niel  Buchanan.76  Richard 
Burnley  of  Virginia  and  Basil  Jackson  of  Mary¬ 
land,  loyalists  at  Yorktown,  were  among  those 
who  had  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  secure 
passage  to  New  York  on  the  Bonetta.  They  were 
arrested  by  the  patriots  and  marched  off  to  Rich¬ 
mond  with  a  score  of  other  loyalists.  Burnley, 
exhausted  from  want  of  food,  was  permitted  to 
return  to  his  home,  where  he  died  five  days  later. 
Jackson  was  jailed  at  Richmond.  He  employed 
counsel,  was  brought  to  trial  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  and,  as  no  witness  appeared  against  him, 
was  released.  After  further  difficulties  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  he  made  his  way  to  the  British  in  New 
York.77 

Because  of  the  difficulty  of  transporting  pris¬ 
oners  and  witnesses  to  Richmond,  a  law  of  No¬ 
vember  17,  1781,  provided  that  the  governor 
might  appoint  special  judges  in  each  county  to 

75  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  626. 

’"‘Ibid.,  III.  56. 

77  Deposition  of  Basil  Jackson,  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5, 
175,  Library  of  Congress  Transcripts. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


59 


try  those  accused  of  treason.78  When  the  special 
court  met  in  Princess  Anne,  there  was  a  near  riot, 
but  by  “spirited  exertion  they  were  quelled.”79 
The  county  lieutenant  of  Norfolk  had  difficulty 
in  finding  “three  men  to  act  as  judges  in  a  court 
for  trying  the  traitors,  they  were  all  taken  up 
and  we  have  sufficient  proof  to  hang  many  of 
them.”80  In  the  Henry  County  court,  Isaac 
Donelson  was  tried  in  January,  1782,  and  admitted 
to  bail.  Several  loyalists  were  convicted,  among 
them  John  Holland  of  Nansemond  County,  but 
appeals  were  granted  to  the  general  court,  and 

I  then  to  the  assembly.  The  assembly  was  lenient 
in  granting  pardon,  often  requiring  only  that  the 
offender  leave  the  state  immediately.81  Through¬ 
out  the  Revolution,  no  person  suffered  death  for 
treason  in  Virginia  by  order  of  a  court  or  the 
assembly.82 

Indifference  to  the  patriot  cause  should  not  be 
confused  with  loyalty  to  Great  Britain.  Indiffer¬ 
ence  was  so  great  by  1777  that  it  was  necessary  to 
pass  a  draft  law  to  obtain  soldiers.  Under  this 
law,  each  county  was  allotted  its  quota  of  militia ; 

78  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  460. 

78  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  101. 

60  Ibid.,  p.  102. 

81  For  acts  of  pardon  to  persons  condemned  for  treason  see 
Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  21,  120,  152. 

88  See  petition  of  John  Holland  in  Journal  of  House  of  Dele¬ 
gates,  May,  1783,  p.  15. 


60 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


if  any  county  failed  to  furnish  the  designated 
number,  the  local  field  officers  were  to  assemble 
all  men  subject  to  military  service  and  have  them 
draw  lots.  Slips  equal  to  the  number  to  draw 
were  prepared  with  the  word  “service”  written 
on  as  many  slips  as  soldiers  were  required.83  The 
drawing  sometimes  occasioned  riots.  In  Augusta 
and  Rockbridge  Counties,  the  papers  for  laying 
off  the  draft  districts  were  seized  by  mobs  and 
destroyed.84  In  Hampshire  County,  in  April, 
1781,  the  draft  officers  were  challenged  by  a  mob 
led  by  John  Claypole;  the  defiant  mob  boldly 
drank  the  king’s  health  in  a  nearby  tavern.85  The 
situation  became  too  serious  for  the  local  authori¬ 
ties,  and  three  companies  of  mounted  militia  were 
sent  from  Frederick  County  to  suppress  the  rebel¬ 
lion.  Claypole  and  his  followers,  among  them 
many  deserters  from  the  army,  surrendered;  they 
were  pardoned.86 

In  Accomac  County,  between  a  hundred  and 
fifty  and  two  hundred  men  assembled,  April  28, 
1781,  the  day  for  the  drawing  of  the  draft,  to 
protest  against  the  law,  and  when  Colonel  George 
Corbin,  the  county  lieutenant,  attempted  to  pro¬ 
ceed,  they  seized  his  papers.  The  drawing  was 

83  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  337-40. 

84  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  107. 

85  Ibid.,  p.  40. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  113,  163,  262,  681. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


61 


postponed  until  the  following  Thursday  week. 
On  that  day  the  mob  returned,  took  possession  of 
the  courthouse,  placed  a  sentinel  at  the  door,  and 
declared  they  would  resist  the  draft  to  the  extent 
of  their  lives.  The  leaders  were  later  arrested, 
tried  by  court  martial,  and  sent  to  the  army.87 
In  Northampton  County  there  was  difficulty 
over  both  draft  and  taxes.88  In  Lancaster  County 
the  county  lieutenant  summoned  the  newly  drafted 
militia,  but  they  appeared  as  a  mob,  seized  the 
papers,  disarmed  the  officers,  and  left.89  In  Bed¬ 
ford  the  county  lieutenant  made  no  attempt  to 
draft  the  county  quota  of  militia  in  March,  1781, 
for  to  have  done  so  “would  have  caused  a  general 
disturbance.”90 

These  rioters  over  the  draft  laws  and  taxes 
were  not  “loyalists”.  By  their  contemporaries, 
they  were  often  called  “Tories”,  but  this  oppro¬ 
brium  did  not  necessarily  signify  loyalty  to  Great 
Britain.  Occasionally  some  diligent  patriot  pro¬ 
fessed  to  discover  that  this  “disaffection”  resulted 
from  British  activity,  but  the  available  evidence 
indicates  that  these  outbursts  were  nothing  more 
than  rebellion  against  taxes  and  military  service. 

87  Ibid.,  II.  97-100. 

85  Ibid. 

'"‘Ibid.  I.  394. 

Ibid.,  p.  590. 


62 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


The  number  of  loyalists  in  Virginia  was  small, 
at  no  time  during  the  Revolution  exceeding  a 
few  thousand.  Their  activity  and  numerical 
strength  varied  with  circumstances.  After  the 
exodus  of  1775-76,  the  loyalists  were  not  in  a 
majority  in  any  community,  unless  in  a  limited 
area  on  the  Rappahannock  or  the  Eastern  Shore. 
Sabine  mentions  only  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
Virginia  loyalists;  of  the  two  thousand  five  hun¬ 
dred  claims  filed  with  the  British  government  for 
loyalist  property  loss  during  the  Revolution,  only 
one  hundred  and  forty  were  from  Virginia. 

The  loyalists  came  from  no  particular  class 
and  from  no  one  section.  The  Scottish  traders 
about  Norfolk,  before  their  departure,  formed  the 
nucleus  of  the  loyalist  party.  An  analysis  of  the 
one  hundred  and  forty  loyalist  claims  from  Vir¬ 
ginia  filed  with  the  parliamentary  commissioners 
in  London  and  Halifax  indicates  that  these  claims 
represent  ninety-three  claimants.  Fifty  of  these 
ninety-three  designate  themselves  as  merchants, 
thirteen  as  officials,  eight  as  ministers,  eight  as 
planters,  four  as  physicians,  three  as  teachers  and 
seven  give  miscellaneous  occupations.  Equally 
significant  is  the  fact  that  only  thirteen  of  the 
ninety-three  designate  themselves  as  natives  of 
Virginia,  while  sixty-four  designate  themselves 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


63 


as  natives  of  the  British  Isles  temporarily  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  all  but  fifteen  having  arrived  after  1760.91 
Of  the  seventy-two  members  of  the  Virginia  Mer¬ 
chants  Association  listed  in  the  Virginia  G<  zette 
of  October  18,  1774,  only  three  or  four  were  later 
patriots.  The  official  class  furnished  a  small  quota 
to  the  King’s  supporters:  Reverend  John  Camm, 
Ralph  Wormley,  Richard  Corbin,  Garvin  Corbin, 
and  William  Byrd,  all  of  old  Virginia  families  and 
at  one  time  members  of  the  Virginia  council,  were 
loyalists.92  John  Randolph,  the  King’s  attorney- 
general  in  Virginia,  and  a  brother  of  Peyton  Ran¬ 
dolph,  left  Virginia  with  his  daughters  at  the  out¬ 
break  of  the  war,  but  his  son,  Edmund  Randolph, 
joined  the  patriot  party,  became  governor  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  the  first  attorney-general  of  the  United 
States. 

Of  the  approximately  one  hundred  ministers  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  Virginia  at  the  out¬ 
break  of  the  Revolution,  eleven  became  members 
of  the  local  committees  of  safety :  Thomas  Smith 
was  chairman  of  the  committee  in  Westmoreland, 
Miles  Seldon  of  the  committee  in  Henrico,  and 
Alexander  Purdie  of  the  committee  in  Brunswick. 
Peter  Muhlenburg,  a  minister  from  Dunmore 

n  Loyalist  Transcripts  (New  York  Public  Library),  XXVII, 
LVIII,  LIX,  passim. 

"Two  members  of  Dunmore’s  Council,  John  Page  and  William 
Nelson,  went  with  the  patriot  party. 


64 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


County,  became  a  major  general  and  led  Vir¬ 
ginia  troops  with  distinction;  Charles  M.  Thurs¬ 
ton,  from  Frederick,  gave  no  less  display  of  pa¬ 
triotism  in  the  assembly  as  a  representative  from 
his  county.  Thirty-four  other  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  by  one  act  or  another,  mani¬ 
fested  their  loyalty  to  Virginia.  Thirteen  of  the 
clergy  of  the  established  Church  leave  records  of 
their  disloyalty:  John  Agnew  joined  Dunmore  at 
Norfolk  and  later  went  into  the  Queen’s  Rangers; 
William  Andrews,  of  Southampton  County,  Alex¬ 
ander  Cruden,  of  Essex,  William  Harrison,  of 
Prince  George,  and  John  Bruce  left  Virginia  dur¬ 
ing  the  war.  Jonathan  Boucher,  at  one  time 
clergyman  in  Westmoreland  County  and  counting 
George  Washington  among  his  parishioners,  left 
Virginia  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution.  John 
Lyons,  of  Accomac,  and  John  Wingate,  of  Orange 
County,  remained  in  the  state,  but  gave  the  pa¬ 
triots  trouble.  Alexander  Gordon,  of  Halifax,  re¬ 
signed  his  parish  and  for  a  time  lived  in  Peters¬ 
burg.  Thirty-nine  ministers  of  the  established 
Church  leave  behind  no  record  of  their  loyalty 
either  to  Virginia  or  England.93  The  Baptists  were 
patriotic,  although  some  of  them  had  scruples 

93  B.  S.  Thomas,  Loyalty  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Virginia, 
is  the  basis  of  this  classification.  Statements  of  the  author  have 
been  checked  whenever  possible,  and  in  some  instances  the  results 
have  been  changed. 


CIVIL  WAR  IN  VIRGINIA 


65 


'  against  serving  in  the  militia.94  “The  Metho- 
"  dists,”  wrote  Josiah  Parker,  county  lieutenant  for 
r  Isle  of  Wight,  “are  preaching  the  gospel  of  pas- 
11  sive  obedience  and  point  out  the  horror  of  war 
in  so  alarming  a  manner  that  it  has  caused  many 
to  declare  they  will  sutler  death  rather  than  kill 
e  even  an  enemy — this  is  a  new  doctrine  and  incul- 
[  cated  by  some  sensible  preachers  of  England, 
1  which,  I  am  told,  is  paid  by  the  Ministry  through 
1  Wesley  for  this  purpose.  It  must  be  discounte¬ 
nanced  or  all  the  Tories  will  plead  religion  as  ex¬ 
cuse  and  get  license  to  preach.”95  On  the  other 
hand,  Philip  Bruce,  a  Methodist  minister  in  east¬ 
ern  Virginia,  was  a  zealous  supporter  of  the 
Revolution.96 

No  social  or  religious  differences  divided  the 
i  loyalists  and  patriots  in  Virginia.  From  all 
classes  and  all  sects,  there  came  a  sprinkling  of 
loyalists.  But  at  no  time  were  they  sufficiently 
numerous  or  active  to  menace  greatly  the  patriot 
success. 

01  Thom,  The  Struggle  for  Religious  Freedom  in  Virginia. 

05  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  151. 

06  Bennett,  Methodism  in  Virginia. 


CHAPTER  III 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE,  1775-1783 

In  October,  1775,  the  Continental  Congress  dis¬ 
cussed  Lord  Dunmore’s  predatory  policy  in  Vir¬ 
ginia.  Chase  and  Johnson,  of  Maryland,  supported 
Richard  Henry  Lee  and  George  Wythe,  of 
Virginia,  in  urging  Congress  to  adopt  immediate 
and  vigorous  measures  to  make  Dunmore  a  priso¬ 
ner.  Others,  notably  Zubly,  of  Georgia,  who  later 
joined  the  loyalist  party  in  his  state,  thought  the 
imprisonment  of  a  royal  governor  would  tend  to 
alienate  the  sympathy  of  the  friends  of  America 
in  Europe;  Zubly  said  he  had  come  to  Congress 
with  “two  views,  one  to  reconcile  the  rights  of 
America,  and  another  to  effect  reconciliation.  If 
a  Royal  Governor  was  captured  what  would  be 
done  with  him”.  Congress,  anxious  to  win  the 
conservatives  to  the  Revolutionary  cause,  adopted 
a  resolution  on  October  6  recommending  “to  the 
several  Provincial  Assemblies  or  Committees  of 
Safety”  that  persons  be  arrested  whose  going  at 
large  might  endanger  their  respective  communi¬ 
ties.1  In  March,  1776,  Congress,  alarmed  by 
loyalism  in  New  York,  recommended  that  the 

1  Journal  of  the  Continental  Congress,  III.  280,  482-3. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  67 


local  governments  disarm  all  persons  notoriously 
disaffected  and  “refusing  to  associate  themselves 
in  arms”  for  the  defense  of  American  liberty.2 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution,  the  local 
governments  looked  to  the  Continental  Congress 
.1  to  formulate  a  policy  toward  the  loyalists,  but 
.  Congress,  by  recommendations  and  resolutions, 

]  placed  the  responsibility  with  the  provincial  gov- 
:  ernments  in  the  states.  Congress  lagged;  the 
states  went  forward.  By  the  end  of  1776  eleven 
independent  state  governments  had  been  estab¬ 
lished;  they  raised  troops,  collected  taxes,  made 
and  executed  laws,  and,  among  other  things,  un¬ 
dertook  the  suppression  of  loyalism.  Once  in 
control  of  loyalist  legislation,  the  state  govern¬ 
ments  opposed  congressional  interference.  In 
1776  Congress,  suspecting  that  the  loyalists  in 
Queens  County,  New  York,  intended  to  go  to  the 
aid  of  Boston,  directed  all  disaffected  in  that 
county  be  disarmed  and  forbidden  to  trade  and 
travel.3  The  provisional  government  in  New 
York  protested  against  this  regulation  of  its  local 
affairs  and  later  sent  a  committee  to  Philadelphia 
that  secured  the  withdrawal  of  the  resolutions  of 
Congress.  On  December  30,  1777,  Congress  or¬ 
dered  all  loyalists  or  Americans  in  British  ser- 

3  Journal  of  the  Continental  Congress,  V.  205. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  441. 


68 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


vice  who  should  be  taken  in  arms  by  the  American 
forces  to  be  sent  to  the  respective  states  to  which 
they  belonged,  there  to  suffer  the  penalties  pre¬ 
scribed  by  the  states.4  This  was  the  final  sur¬ 
render  by  Congress  of  control  over  the  loyalists. 

On  the  sea,  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  over 
loyalist  property  was  more  far-reaching,  in  the¬ 
ory,  if  not  in  practice.  In  July,  1776,  a  committee, 
appointed  by  Congress  to  formulate  a  policy  re¬ 
specting  British  property  taken  on  the  sea,  recom¬ 
mended  that  all  goods,  merchandise,  and  ships  be¬ 
longing  to  the  subjects  of  the  king  of  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  and  all  others  “who  aid,  adhere  to,  or  in  any 
way  assist  him”,  taken  on  the  high  sea,  be  con¬ 
fiscated.  The  recommendations  were  passed  in 
the  form  of  resolutions.5  These  resolutions  were 
declared  law  in  Virginia,  and,  according  to  Vir¬ 
ginia  law,  rulings  of  the  admiralty  court  of  Con¬ 
gress  were  to  be  final  in  the  state  admiralty 
courts.6  But,  in  actual  practice,  admiralty  juris¬ 
diction,  as  loyalist  legislation,  remained  largely 
with  the  states.  Each  state,  anxious  to  make  as 
many  captures  as  possible  and  thereby  to  swell 
the  local  treasury,  offered  rewards  to  successful 
captors.  In  Virginia  one  third  of  the  prize  was 

4  Ibid.,  IX.  1069. 

‘Ibid.,  V.  572,  591,  605. 

*  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  202-206. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  69 


given  to  the  captors  and  the  remainder,  after  the 
expenses  had  been  deducted,  was  paid  into  the 
state  treasury.  In  1776  Captain  Taylor  seized 
four  sloops  having  on  board  some  Negroes  who 
had  been  with  Dunmore.  Virginia  sold  the 
Negroes  for  six  hundred  and  forty-two  pounds.7 
Disputes  between  Virginia  and  Maryland  over 
loyalist  and  British  property  seized  in  the  Chesa¬ 
peake  were  frequent.  The  amount  of  goods  taken 
in  the  Chesapeake  and  about  the  Capes  was  never 
large.  Enemy  trade  was  insignificant,  unless  a 
British  fleet  was  nearby  to  give  protection.8  The 
states,  however,  took  precaution  to  safeguard 
their  interests  in  all  loyalist  property  that  was 
seized,  on  land  and  sea;  in  actual  practice,  Con¬ 
gress  exercised  little  authority. 

After  the  futile  attempts  of  Congress  in  Octo¬ 
ber,  1775,  and  March,  1776,  that  body  abandoned 
anti-loyalist  legislation,  and  the  individual  states 
formulated  such  policies  of  suppression  and  pun¬ 
ishment  as  local  circumstances  demanded.  Follow¬ 
ing  the  congressional  recommendations  of  Octo¬ 
ber,  1775,  Virginia,  in  December  of  the  same  year, 
prescribed  a  mode  of  punishment  for  enemies  of 

7  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1777 ,  p.  88. 

8  There  were  about  seventy  vessels,  varying  in  size  and  equip¬ 
ment,  in  the  service  of  Virginia  during  the  Revolution.  See 
“Virginia  Navy  in  the  American  Revolution”  in  Southern  Liter¬ 
ary  Messenger,  XXIV. 


70 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


America  in  that  colony.  Any  white  person  who  v 
had  furnished  intelligence  to  the  enemy,  had  sup-  ei 
plied  him  with  provisions,  or  had  borne  arms  n 
against  the  colony,  would  be  pardoned  for  the  of-  I 
fense  if  he  took  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  pro-  \ 
visional  government  within  two  months.  If  such 
person  failed  to  take  the  oath,  he  was  to  be  ar¬ 
rested  and  brought  before  a  local  court.  Five 
persons  appointed  by  the  local  committee  of  safety 
presided  over  this  court.  Here  the  accused  was 
given  a  jury  trial,  and,  if  found  guilty,  was  liable 
to  imprisonment  and  his  estate  to  sequestration. 
Proceeds  from  the  sequestered  estates  were  to  be 
used  for  the  benefit  of  the  colony.  Appeal  could 
be  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  local  court  to 
the  central  committee  at  Williamsburg,  which 
body  alone  had  the  power  to  pardon.  Slaves 
guilty  of  aiding  the  enemy,  if  taken  in  arms,  were 
to  be  exported  to  the  West  Indies  and  exchanged 
for  powder.  If  this  proved  impracticable,  the 
local  government  should  utilize  their  labor.9  About 
Norfolk  a  few  of  the  inhabitants  had  aided  Dun- 
more,  and  many  others  had  taken  the  British  oath 
after  the  fight  at  Kempsville.10  When  the  patriot 
militia  appeared  in  Norfolk  in  December,  1775, 
many  citizens  took  advantage  of  the  liberal  pro- 

9  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  101. 

10  See  above,  p.  39. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  71 


^  visions  of  this  act  and,  in  order  to  save  their  prop- 
•  erty,  swore  allegiance  to  the  Williamsburg  govern- 
>  ment  as  readily  as  they  had  subscribed  to  the 
British  oath  a  month  earlier.  Others,  known  to 
have  been  with  Dunmore,  who  did  not  take  the 
oath,  were  arrested  and,  because  the  military  au¬ 
thorities  thought  the  local  committees  too  lenient 
in  punishing  their  disaffected  neighbors,  were 
sent  in  chains  to  Williamsburg  for  trial  before 
the  central  committee  of  safety.11 

The  piratical  raids  of  Lord  Dunmore  on  the 
Chesapeake  plantations  provoked  the  Virginia 
assembly  to  pass  a  more  stringent  law  in  May, 
1776,  for  the  punishment  of  loyalists.  This  sec¬ 
ond  law  provided  that  anyone  aiding,  abetting,  or 
assisting  an  enemy  of  the  colony  “upon  conviction, 
shall  forfeit  his,  her,  or  their  estates,  real  and 
personal,  to  the  use  of  the  commonwealth,  and  be 
imprisoned  for  such  a  time  as  the  Committee  shall 
direct.”12  The  first  law  made  punishment  discre¬ 
tionary  with  the  committee ;  the  law  of  May,  1776, 
prescribed  sequestration  of  property  and  imprison¬ 
ment  as  a  penalty  for  loyalism. 

In  June  Virginia  established  a  state  govern¬ 
ment,  definitely  and  officially  declaring  separation 

11  Peter  Force,  American  Archives,  Fourth  Series,  IV.  75;  Rich¬ 
mond  College  Historical  Papers,  I.  The  letters  of  William 
Woolford. 

12  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  130-32. 


72 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


from  Great  Britain.  Increased  vigor  character¬ 
ized  subsequent  legislation  against  loyalists.  In  1 
October,  1776,  proposed  legislation  against  loy¬ 
alists  became  a  point  of  general  disagreement  be¬ 
tween  the  lower  and  upper  branches  of  the  assem¬ 
bly.  A  joint  session  of  the  two  bodies  was  held. 
George  Mason,  who  had  little  sympathy  for  loy¬ 
alists,  led  the  discussion  for  the  lower  house.13  ‘ 
The  result  was  a  law,  passed  December  12,  pro¬ 
viding  that  anyone  who  joined  the  enemy  in  levy¬ 
ing  war  or  who  adhered  to  the  enemy  in  giving 
them  aid  or  comfort,  would  be  guilty  of  treason, 
and,  upon  conviction,  suffer  death  without  benefit 
of  clergy.  The  estate  of  the  convicted  was  to  be 
seized  by  the  state.  Under  this  law  the  governor 
had  the  power  to  stay  execution,  but  only  the 
assembly  could  pardon.14  Persons  guilty  of  an 
offense  less  than  treason,  i.e.,  anyone  who  upheld 
the  authority  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain  but  com¬ 
mitted  no  overt  act,  should  be  fined  not  more  than 
twenty  thousand  pounds  and  imprisoned  for  not 
more  than  five  years.15  Two  copies  of  these  laws 
were  sent  immediately  to  each  county,  ordered 
read  in  the  churches,  and  published  in  public 
places. 

13  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October,  1776,  pp.  123, 
125,  127. 

14  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  168. 

15  Ibid.,  pp.  170-73. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  73 


In  May,  1777,  the  assembly  took  another  step 
,  to  separate  the  loyalists  and  the  patriots.  A  law 
.  was  passed  requiring  every  male  inhabitant  above 
the  age  of  sixteen  to  renounce  allegiance  to  the 
British  government  and  pledge  fidelity  to  the  new¬ 
ly  created  state  government.  Justices  of  the 
peace  in  each  county  were  to  tour  their  districts 
and  offer  the  oath  to  each  citizen.  Lists  of  those 
who  took  the  oath  and  of  those  who  refused  to 
subscribe  were  to  be  filed  with  the  clerks  of  the 
county  courts.  Persons  entering  the  state  were 
to  be  tendered  the  oath  upon  their  entrance,  and 
if  any  newcomer  refused  to  subscribe,  he  was  to 
be  imprisoned  until  he  gave  bond  to  depart.16  In 
Henry  County  six  hundred  and  eighty-five  per¬ 
sons  took  the  oath  before  January  1,  1778;  eleven 
refused,  but  several  of  these  later  subscribed.17 
In  October,  1777,  the  assembly  imposed  a  penalty 
of  double  taxes  on  all  who  had  not  subscribed  to 
the  oath  by  May  1,  1778.  The  next  year  the 
penalty  tax  was  tripled.18  There  were  many  in 
Virginia  who  failed  to  subscribe  to  the  oath  by 
the  allotted  time,  but  their  failure  appears  to  have 
been  due  more  to  neglect  or  ignorance  than  to  dis¬ 
loyalty  to  the  state  government.  For  example, 

111  Ibid.,  pp.  281-83. 

17  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  IX.  139-42. 

18  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  349. 


74 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


David  Coleman,  of  Amelia  County,  testified  that 
he  had  not  subscribed  to  the  oath  because  he  knew 
nothing  of  it.19  Joshua  Timoly  and  Simon  Miller 
declared  that  the  justices  had  never  offered  them 
the  oath.20  Forty  citizens  on  the  Monongahela 
River  protested  against  penalties  imposed  upon 
them,  because  no  opportunity  to  subscribe  had 
been  offered.21  On  May  1,  1778,  the  day  by  which 
all  inhabitants  of  the  state  were  to  have  sub¬ 
scribed,  there  yet  remained  many  non-subscribers. 
An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  in  the  assembly 
to  extend  the  time  ;22  a  later  session  of  the  assem¬ 
bly  provided  that  all  delinquents  who  would  take 
the  oath  should  have  the  fines  they  had  paid  cred¬ 
ited  to  their  future  taxes.23 

The  merchants  require  separate  attention.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  there  were  ap¬ 
proximately  two  thousand  merchants  in  Virginia, 
a  majority  of  them  of  foreign  birth.24  Some  of 
these  merchants,  notably  those  about  Norfolk, 
persisted  in  loyalism  and  were  subject,  of  course, 
to  the  legislation  against  loyalists.  Others  were 

18  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  208. 

20  Ibid.,  Nos.  209,  210. 

21  Ibid.,  No.  270. 

22  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1778,  p.  48. 

23  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  547. 

24  A.  M.  Schlesinger,  Colonial  Merchants  and  the  American 
Revolution,  p.  601. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  75 


t  willing  to  swear  their  allegiance  to  the  patriot 
government  and  petitioned  the  convention  in  the 
summer  of  1775  that  a  line  of  proper  conduct  be 
laid  down  for  them.  George  Mason  drew  up  an 
ordinance  prescribing  an  oath,  which  he  thought 
“no  good  man  could  object  to”;  the  merchants  at 
Richmond  declared  themselves  pleased  with  it.25 
A  majority  of  the  merchants,  despite  their  Scot¬ 
tish  or  English  birth,  desired  to  remain  in  the  state 
as  neutrals.  Charles  Duncan,  a  prominent  Scottish 
merchant  near  Petersburg,  in  a  petition  to  the 
convention  in  1775,  stated  the  position  of  many 
of  his  fellow  tradesmen.  Duncan  explained  that 
his  purpose  in  the  colony  was  to  sell  wares,  not  to 
meddle  in  politics.  He  desired  the  good  will  of 
the  people  and  had  attempted  to  persuade  his 
neighbors  that  he  was  not  disloyal  to  America. 
The  neighbors  would  have  none  of  it.  “Their  pas¬ 
sions  are  heated  and  they  disregard  peaceful  mem¬ 
orials”  and  demand  that  “I  leave  the  property  I 
have  accumulated  [and  enlist  in  the  militia]  or 
remain  to  protect  it  at”  their  displeasure.26 

The  October  session  of  the  assembly  of  1776 
discussed  for  several  weeks  the  perplexing  prob¬ 
lem  of  the  neutral  merchant.  Some  members  were 
apprehensive  of  the  effect  upon  the  state  if  the 

“  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  I.  268. 

26  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XIV.  395. 


76 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


mercantile  class  was  dealt  with  too  harshly,  but 
the  indebted  planters,  anxious  to  be  free  of  their 
creditors,  were  determined  upon  their  banish¬ 
ment.  The  foreign-born  merchant,  anxious  to 
safeguard  his  business,  might  be  neutral  in  action, 
but  it  was  well  known  that  he  was  anti-Revolu- 
tionary  in  sentiment.  On  December  18,  the  House 
of  Delegates,  in  a  committee  of  the  whole,  after 
much  discussion,  passed  a  resolution  instructing 
the  governor  to  put  in  force  immediately  the  Sta¬ 
tute  Staple  of  27  Edward  III,  chapter  17,  against 
all  the  “natives  of  Great  Britain  who  were  part¬ 
ners  with  agents,  storekeepers,  assistant  store¬ 
keepers,  or  clerks  for  any  merchant  in  Great 
Britain — except  only  such  as  heretofore  uniform- 
ally  manifested  a  friendly  disposition  to  the  Amer¬ 
ican  cause,  or  are  attached  to  this  country  by  hav¬ 
ing  wives  or  children  here.”*7  The  Statute  Staple 
provided  that  foreign  merchants  should  depart 
within  forty  days,  “and  in  the  meantime  they  were 
not  to  be  hindered  in  their  passage.”28  If  it  ap¬ 
peared  to  the  council  that  the  merchants  were  un¬ 
able  to  secure  their  passage  to  a  foreign  port,  the 
vessels  of  the  commonwealth  should  be  used  to 
deport  them.  Any  merchant  coming  under  the 
description  of  the  above  act,  found  in  Virginia 

27  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1777 ,  p.  88. 

28  See  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  I.  339. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  77 


t  after  the  time  prescribed  for  his  departure,  was 
■  to  be  confined  as  an  enemy.  These  resolutions, 

•  with  the  Statute  Staple,  were  published  in  the 
i  Virginia  Gazette  and  became  effective  January 
1,  1777.29 

After  1776,  the  state  permitted  no  neutrality, 
and  many  of  those  merchants  who  were  unwilling 
to  subscribe  to  the  oath  of  allegiance  prepared  to 
depart  from  Virginia.  Thomas  Reid,  agent  in 
Northumberland  County  for  McCall,  Denniston 
and  Company,  when  he  received  notice  of  the 
Statute  Staple,  “reduced  his  dealings  in  as  clear 
a  form  as  possible,  taking  bills,  bonds  and  notes  in 
settlement” ;  when  possible  he  made  collections  and 
closed  accounts.  Frequently,  in  settlement,  he 
found  it  necessary  to  take  assignment  of  bonds. 
If  he  could  make  no  settlement,  lists  of  balances 
were  made  out,  and,  if  possible,  the  debtor  was  in¬ 
duced  to  acknowledge  the  debt.  As  he  thought 
it  unsafe  to  attempt  to  carry  the  bonds  from  the 
state,  the  agent  hid  them  in  an  iron  box  in  an  old 
house.  This  done,  Reid  left  Virginia.30  Several 
merchants  secured  passage  on  the  ship  Albion  in 
May,  1777;  others  left  in  merchant  vessels.  Some 
returned  to  England  or  Scotland;  many  went  to 

”  Virginia  Gazette,  December  20,  1776. 

30  An  undated  petition  in  Letters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers, 


.XXV. 


78 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


the  British  lines  to  await  the  termination  of  the 
war.  A  few  trusted  chance  and  remained  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  without  subscribing  to  any  oath.  Five  mer¬ 
chants  in  Northumberland  were  reported  later  as 
disaffected  and  within  the  meaning  of  the  resolu¬ 
tions  of  December,  1776.31  Scottish  merchants  re¬ 
mained  in  Richmond  and  Petersburg  throughout 
the  Revolution.32  A  petition  from  Mecklenburg 
County  to  the  House  of  Delegates  in  May,  1777, 
reported  that  merchants  were  in  that  county  in 
violation  of  the  resolutions  and  asked  that  they  be 
forced  to  depart.33 

In  early  Revolutionary  days  there  was  great 
danger  that  the  patriot  cause  would  be  defeated 
by  a  well  organized  loyalist  party  in  America. 
Early  legislation,  therefore,  had  as  its  chief  object 
the  expulsion  of  the  disaffected  and  the  suppres¬ 
sion  of  loyalist  sentiment.  In  this  Virginia  was 
preeminently  successful. 

The  suppression  of  loyalism,  however,  was 
overshadowed  more  and  more  by  the  supreme 
struggle  to  finance  the  war,  and,  after  1777,  loy¬ 
alist  legislation  become  closely  identified  with  state 
finances. 

31  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  XX.  129. 

32  Samuel  Mordecai,  Richmond  in  Bygone  Days,  ch.  ii. 

33  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1777,  p.  13. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  79 


Recourse  to  paper  money  was  natural  and  in¬ 
evitable,  but  the  success  of  paper  money  depended 
upon  the  state’s  ability  to  keep  it  in  circulation 
at  a  moderate  rate  of  exchange.  Paper  money 
was  made  legal  tender  by  the  state  government, 
but  a  majority  of  the  merchants  retained  a  sense 
of  value  which  outweighed  patriotism;  although 
they  might  subscribe  to  an  oath  of  allegiance  and 
remain  in  the  state,  they  were  reluctant  to  accept 
the  fiat  money,  which,  in  actual  value,  stood  at  a 
ratio  of  one  and  one-half  to  one  in  January, 
1777,  and  three  to  one  in  October.  A  law  of  May, 
1776,  imposed  a  fine  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
sum  involved  on  anyone  who  refused  to  accept 
paper  currency  as  legal  tender.34  Another  law 
of  May,  1777,  stipulated  that  if  a  merchant  or 
factor  refused  payment  in  paper  money,  although 
the  contract  might  call  for  sterling,  interest  on 
the  debt  was  to  cease.35  A  petition,  signed  by 
a  hundred  and  eighty-five  persons  in  Mecklen¬ 
burg  County,  sent  to  the  assembly  in  May,  1777, 
set  forth  that  the  merchants  and  their  factors,  de¬ 
spite  all  laws,  declare  “that  the  paper  money  now 
in  circulation  is  of  little  or  no  value,  and  abso¬ 
lutely  refuse  to  receive  the  same  in  discharge  of 
the  debts  due  to  British  merchants  with  whom 

34  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  143-48;  286-89. 

35  Ibid.,  pp.  297-98. 


80 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


they  are  concerned.”36  Money  in  Virginia  was 
becoming  more  plentiful  each  day.  The  Revolu¬ 
tionary  government  by  January  1,  1778,  had  is¬ 
sued  paper  money  for  £946,492  ;37  only  £91,246 
had  been  raised  by  taxes.38  The  indebted  planter 
was  in  a  position  to  pay  off  his  debts  with  depreci¬ 
ated  paper;  if  he,  through  his  allegiance  to  the 
patriot  cause,  was  compelled  to  accept  the  paper 
money,  why  should  not  his  creditor,  the  enemy,  be 
compelled  to  take  it  ?  Should  the  anti-Revolution- 
ary  merchant  be  permitted  to  refuse  the  state’s 
currency  and  thus  drive  paper  to  a  new  lower  level, 
while  the  patriot  struggled  to  maintain  its  parity? 

A  state  loan  office,  under  direction  of  the  treas¬ 
urer,  had  been  established  in  May,  1777,  to  bor¬ 
row  money  for  Virginia.  Its  function  was  much 
the  same  as  the  state  branch  of  the  Continental 
loan  office.39  To  aid  the  state  loan  office,  to  ap¬ 
pease  the  clamor  of  petitioners,  and  to  maintain 
the  currency,  a  general  sequestration  law  was 
passed  in  October,  1777.  This  law  provided  that 
debts  due  British  subjects  from  citizens  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  could  be  paid  into  the  loan  office  of  the  state, 

36  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  89. 

37  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  286-89;  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,  May  1777,  p.  141. 

38  See  the  report  of  the  Treasurer  in  Journal  of  the  House  of 
Delegates,  October  1776,  pp.  100,  124;  also  Journal  of  Senate, 
October  1777 ,  January  8,  1778. 

39  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  283. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  81 


'  and  the  auditor  would  give  the  debtor  a  certificate 
of  payment  that  would  discharge  the  debtor  from 
’  all  future  obligations  to  the  creditor.40 

The  clause  providing  for  the  payment  of  British 
debts  into  the  loan  office  was  as  beneficial  to  the 
planter  as  it  was  obnoxious  to  the  merchant.  Vir¬ 
ginia  citizens  owed  between  two  and  three  million 
pounds  sterling  to  British  merchants.41  Ob¬ 
viously,  if  these  debts  could  be  paid  in  paper 
>  money,  now  worth  one-third  its  face  value  and 
depreciating  each  day,  the  gain  to  the  individual 
would  be  great.  For  the  state,  the  possible  advan¬ 
tages  would  be  equally  important;  it  would  in¬ 
crease  the  demand  and  the  value  of  the  currency, 
and  the  sums  paid  into  the  treasury  would  provide 
a  sinking  fund.  Liabilities  of  the  citizens  would 
be  transformed  into  assets  of  the  state. 

The  first  payment  into  the  loan  office  under  this 
law  was  made  on  March  2,  1778,  when  Paul  Car¬ 
rington  paid  £324  in  paper  to  discharge  a  sterling 
debt  for  the  same  amount  due  to  James  Campbell 
and  Company.42  At  that  time  the  paper  money 
of  Virginia  stood  five  to  one.43  Between  March 

40  Ibid.,  pp.  377-80. 

41  Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  55.  This  estimate  by  Jefferson  of 
the  amount  due  from  Virginia  is  probably  partial  to  the  debtors, 
of  whom  he  was  one. 

43  Auditor’s  Cash  Book,  1777-1778,  p.  107. 

43  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  460-68. 


82 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


and  November,  1778,  £27,022  in  paper  with  a 
specie  value  of  £5404  was  paid  into  the  loan  office 
to  discharge  debts.  By  January  1,  1778,  only 
£41,706  had  been  paid  in,44  too  small  an  amount 
to  render  material  aid  to  the  financial  system. 
Taxes  collected  in  1778  amounted  to  approxi¬ 
mately  £150,000,  and  £445,000  of  paper  money 
was  issued.45  In  1779,  £92,552  was  paid  into  the 
loan  office  to  discharge  British  debts.  However 
beneficial  to  debtors  who  made  the  payments,  it 
caused  but  a  ripple  in  the  state  finance.  During 
the  same  year,  £1,690,000  of  paper  money  was 
issued;46  the  value  of  the  currency  fell  from  six 
to  one  to  forty  to  one.47  The  sum  received  at  the 
loan  office  did  nothing  to  check  the  depreciation. 
In  January,  1780,  the  currency  was  rated  at  forty- 
two  pounds  of  paper  for  one  pound  sterling;  by 
May  it  fell  to  sixty.  The  impossibility  of  forcing 
the  currency  as  legal  tender  was  realized.  Al¬ 
ready,  in  May,  1779,  the  laws  imposing  penalties 
upon  those  who  asked  more  for  gold  than  paper 
had  been  repealed.48  The  sound  money  in  the 
state  had  long  been  withheld  from  circulation. 

44  Auditor’s  Day  Book,  passim. 

45  Journal  of  the  Senate,  October  1778,  p.  39. 

“Auditor’s  Day  Book,  passim;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Dele¬ 
gates,  October  1779,  p.  116. 

47  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  460-68. 

48  Ibid.,  p.  125. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  83 


A  petition  signed  by  four  hundred  citizens  of 
Berkeley  and  Frederick  Counties  protested  against 
creditors  who,  despite  all  laws,  refuse  to  accept 
paper.49  The  small  amount  paid  into  the  loan 
office  under  the  law  of  October,  1777,  was  insuffi¬ 
cient  to  restore  the  financial  stability  of  the  state. 
The  benefits  of  the  payments  became  smaller  to 
the  state  as  the  money  depreciated,  although  the 
payments  increased.  The  hopelessness  of  the  sit¬ 
uation  and  the  possibilities  of  future  difficulties 
led  the  assembly  of  May,  1780,  to  repeal  the  law 
providing  for  the  payments  into  the  loan  office.50 
No  payments  were  made  after  May  23,  1780. 

From  the  first  of  January,  1780,  until  May, 
when  the  payments  were  stopped,  £139,307  were 
paid  to  the  state,  £1 19,522  being  paid  in  April  and 
May,  when  one  pound  sterling  was  equivalent  to 
sixty  pounds  of  the  Virginia  currency.  In  all, 
£273,554  of  paper  money,  with  a  sterling  value  of 
£15,044,  was  paid  into  the  treasury  to  discharge 
British  debts.  Five  hundred  and  twenty-two  pay¬ 
ments  were  made  by  nearly  as  many  persons, 
three  hundred  and  thirty-seven  falling  in  the  five 
months  of  1780,  when  the  law  was  in  operation.51 

49  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  332 ;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Dele¬ 
gates,  May  1779,  p.  37. 

“  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  227. 

51  Auditor’s  Day  Books,  passim,  1778-1781.  See  also  a  report 
in  Public  Record  Office,  C.  O.,  5,  1344,  Library  of  Congress 
Transcripts. 


84 


LOYAL/SM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Jefferson  wrote  Jones  and  Farrell,  merchants  of 
Bristol,  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution 
he  had  sold  lands  and,  when  the  bonds  became  due, 
he  was  paid  in  money  “that  was  not  worth  oak 
leaves.”  This  money  Jefferson  paid  into  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  loan  office  to  discharge  a  debt  due  these 
merchants.  He  promised  to  repay  the  amount.63 
An  interesting  list  could  be  made  of  Revolutionary 
patriots  who  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity 
to  pay  their  debts.53  The  state  received  sums  due 
to  thirty-three  mercantile  houses;  the  names  of  a 
number  of  individuals,  some  of  them  doubtless 
factors  for  merchants,  appear  on  the  treasury 
books.  The  debts  had  been  contracted  for  slaves, 
thorough-bred  horses,  manufactured  articles, 
loans,  and  sums  advanced  for  the  education  of 
planters’  sons  in  England.34  After  the  Treaty  of 
Paris,  these  debts  and  their  Revolutionary  pay¬ 
ment  gave  much  trouble  to  debtor  and  creditor.55 

A  second  feature  of  the  law  of  October,  1777, 
provided  for  the  sequestration  of  real  and  per¬ 
sonal  property  in  Virginia  belonging  to  British 

“Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  201. 

63  See  above,  pp.  27-28. 

64  Auditor’s  Books,  passim.  The  receipt  books  for  sums  paid 
into  the  auditor’s  office  under  this  law  were  lost  during  the  in¬ 
vasion  in  1780;  only  the  entries  in  the  Auditor’s  Cash  or  Day 
Book  remain.  A  careful  search  of  each  page  of  these  books  for 
the  period  has  been  made. 

“See  below,  pp.  130,  132,  161-176. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  85 


subjects.  This  was  no  new  policy.  By  a  resolu¬ 
tion  of  the  assembly,  June  15,  1776,  the  property 
of  Lord  Dunmore  had  been  seized  and  placed  in 
the  hands  of  commissioners.  The  personal  prop¬ 
erty  was  sold  at  public  auction  and  his  farms 
leased.50  John  Wilkie  was  convicted  of  disloy¬ 
alty  in  May,  1776,  by  a  special  court  appointed  by 
the  committee  of  safety  in  Norfolk,  and  his  prop¬ 
erty  was  sold  for  two  hundred  and  forty-two 
pounds.57  The  law  of  October,  1777,  provided 
that  all  real  and  personal  property  of  British  sub¬ 
jects  should  be  entrusted  to  commissioners  for 
each  estate.  Any  profits  derived  from  the  man¬ 
agement  of  the  estate  were  to  be  paid  into  the 
state  treasury;  all  unpaid  rents  due  to  British 
subjects  went  to  the  state.  Suits  where  British 
subjects  were  plaintiffs  and  American  citizens 
defendants  were  to  be  suspended,  but  if  Ameri¬ 
can  citizens  were  plaintiffs  and  British  subjects 
defendants,  the  court  should  proceed  to  trial. 


“  The  commissioners  in  Berkeley  County  sold  the  personal 
property  of  Dunmore  on  October  4,  1776  (including  eleven 
Negroes,  twenty-one  cattle,  “two  old  horses  and  one  mare,’’  pro¬ 
visions,  and  some  household  furniture)  for  £1118.  Edmund 
Randolph  and  John  Blair,  commissioners  in  Williamsburg,  hur¬ 
ried  up  the  sale,  that  it  might  take  place  when  the  assembly  was 
in  session.  Dunmore’s  library,  silver  candle  sticks,  furniture, 
carriage,  etc.,  were  sold  for  £2572.  Porto  Bello  and  the  Farm 
were  leased  to  Dr.  James  Carter.  Journal  of  the  House^off 
Delegates,  October  1776,  pp.  39,  83,  131. 

61  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XV.  290. 


86 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


This  act  did  not  disturb  the  title  of  the  British 
subject,  but  sequestered  his  property  to  the  use  of 
the  state.  When  seven  persons  joined  the  British 
in  May,  1778,  the  governor  ordered  their  prop¬ 
erty  to  be  sequestered  according  to  this  act.58 

In  October,  1778,  forty  citizens  of  Hampton, 
near  Norfolk,  petitioned  that  property  of  Osgood 
Hanbury,  which  had  already  been  sequestered,  be 
annexed  to  the  town  and  sold.  The  Hanbury 
property  included  a  desirable  water  front,  which 
local  traders  were  eager  to  possess.  The  House 
of  Delegates  deferred  action  on  the  petition  until 
the  following  May.59  This  desire  of  some  citizens 
to  obtain  possession  of  the  property  of  the  loyal¬ 
ists  was  natural  and  widespread.  They  exerted 
their  influence  on  the  next  session  of  the  assembly. 
The  estates,  they  indicated,  were  not  success¬ 
fully  managed  by  the  commissioners  appointed 
under  the  sequestration  law  of  1777 ;  the  profits 
were  small;  the  property  depreciated  for  want  of 
proper  attention  and  was  liable  to  destruction; 
prices  were  good,  and  the  estates  should  be  sold. 
If  the  state  at  any  time  in  the  future  decided  to 
restore  the  estates,  the  money  for  which  they  were 
sold  could  be  paid  to  the  former  owners.  More¬ 
over,  the  funds  to  be  derived  from  the  sale  would 

58  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography ;  XXX.  289. 

68  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  224. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  87 


be  of  great  benefit  to  the  depleted  treasury  of  the 
state.60  Thomas  Jefferson  was  appointed  to  draw 
up  a  bill  to  provide  for  the  sale  of  the  sequestered 
property.  He  reported  his  draft  on  May  29,  and 
from  that  date  until  the  end  of  the  session  it  was 
the  chief  topic  of  debate  in  both  branches  of  the 
assembly.  After  a  division  between  the  house  and 
the  senate,  they  reached  an  agreement  the  last  day 
of  the  session  and  enacted  a  bill  for  the  sale  of 
loyalists’  estates.61 

This  law  vested  in  the  commonwealth  property 
in  Virginia  belonging  to  British  subjects — the 
personal  property  by  forfeiture,  the  real  property 
by  escheat.  The  process  of  escheat  followed 
closely  the  practice  of  English  law.  Escheators 
were  appointed  in  each  county,  except  in  the 
Northern  Neck,  by  the  governor  upon  recommend¬ 
ation  from  the  county  court.  In  the  Northern  Neck 
the  sheriff  performed  the  duties  of  escheator.  The 
escheator  was  to  hold  a  court  of  inquest  at  a  con¬ 
venient  place,  impanel  a  jury,  and  take  evidence 
against  alleged  British  subjects.  A  return  of  the 
finding  of  the  county  court  should  be  made  to  the 

60  By  the  end  of  1778  nearly  £2,000.000  of  paper  money  had 
been  emitted.  Less  than  £250,000  had  been  raised  by  the  sheriffs ; 
the  land  office  had  yielded  the  state  about  £50,000.  Any  deficiency 
between  receipts  and  expenditures  was  made  up  by  the  issue  of 
paper  money. 

“  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1779,  pp.  32,  77. 
Journal  of  the  Senate,  May  1779,  p.  53. 


88 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


clerk  of  the  general  court,  and  these  returns  should 
remain  in  the  general  court  one  year,  during  which 
time  the  estates  sequestered  were  in  possession  of 
the  escheators.  Two  months  after  the  year  had 
elapsed,  if  no  successful  appeal  was  made  from 
the  finding  of  the  county  court  of  inquest,  the 
clerk  of  the  general  court  notified  the  escheator, 
and  he  proceeded  with  the  sale  of  the  property. 
The  sale  was  public,  and  two  appointed  commis¬ 
sioners  were  present  to  certify  the  returns  of  the 
sale  to  the  auditor.  The  purchaser  of  the  proper¬ 
ty  received  a  deed  from  the  state  land  office,  where 
all  deeds  of  purchasers  of  British  estates  were 
recorded  with  titles  to  unpatented  lands.62  The 

62  November  27,  1777,  Congress  recommended  to  the  states  that 
the  real  and  personal  estates  of  such  persons  as  had  forfeited 
their  right  to  protection  be  seized  and  sold  and  the  receipts  in¬ 
vested  in  Continental  Loan  Office  certificates  ( Journal  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  IX.  971),  Rhode  Island  confiscated  the 
property  of  certain  disaffected  persons,  naming  them  in  the  act ; 
North  Carolina,  in  November  1777,  confiscated  the  property  of 
loyalists  and  of  British  merchants.  Georgia  passed  a  confis¬ 
catory  act,  March  1,  1778;  Pennsylvania  passed  such  an  act, 
March  6,  1778,  and  Connecticut,  on  May  14,  1778.  In  New 
Hampshire,  property  was  confiscated  by  an  act  of  November  28, 
1778,  and  New  Jersey  followed,  December  11.  In  New  York, 
real  estate  was  held  in  trust,  as  it  was  under  the  sequestration 
act  in  Virginia,  until  October  22,  1779,  when  an  act  was  passed 
attainting  fifty-nine  persons,  whose  property  was  to  be  sold.  In 
Virginia,  no  bills  of  attainder  were  passed  (except  in  the  case 
of  the  renegade  Josiah  Philips — see  American  Historical  Review, 
I.  445).  In  England,  when  property  was  confiscated,  it  was  cus¬ 
tomary  to  do  so  by  process  of  office  found.  An  inquest  was  held 
by  an  escheator  over  the  property  in  question,  and  the  title  was 
declared  to  lie  in  the  crown.  Sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  an 
act  of  parliament  in  the  reign  of  Philip  and  Mary  declaring  the 
property  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt  to  be  vested  in  the  crown,  con- 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  89 


deed  made  by  the  land  office  in  consequence  of  the 
sale  was  to  be  good  against  all  claims  whatsoever, 
but  the  former  owner  might  claim  the  money  paid 
to  the  commonwealth  for  the  estate.63  The  eschea- 
tor  received  three  per  cent,  of  the  receipts  from  the 
sale  of  the  first  thousand  pounds  and  one  and  one- 
half  per  cent,  thereafter. 

The  property  of  all  “real  British  subjects”  came 
within  the  meaning  of  this  act.  The  term  “real 
British  subjects”  included  all  British  subjects  who 
were  absent  from  the  United  States  on  April  19, 
1775,  and  had  given  no  evidence  since  that  time 
of  their  allegiance;  all  persons  who  by  overt  act 
had  adhered  to  the  enemy ;  all  persons  who  were  in 
the  United  States  on  April  19,  1775,  but  who 
left  before  the  commencement  of  the  act  of  Octo- 


fiscation  was  completed  without  any  process  of  office  found. 
Such  instances  were  the  exception.  In  the  case  of  Wyatt,  it  was 
specifically  stated  that  tfae  confiscation  was  to  be  without  the 
process  of  office  found.  Seizure  of  the  property  of  those  guilty,’ 
of  treason  was  early  established  in  English  law.  John  and  his 
successors  insisted  upon  it  when  they  enriched  themselves  by 
seizing  the  terrae  Normanorum,  the  English  lands  of  those  who 
preferred  to  be  Frenchmen  rather  than  Englishmen,  when  the 
victories  of  Philip  Augustus  forced  upon  them  the  choice  between 
the  two  nationalities  (Frederick  Pollock  and  F.  W.  Maitland, 
History  of  English  Laiv  [Sec.  Ed.],  I.  292,  332;  II.  498).  The 
English  process  was  followed  closely  in  the  seizure  of  property  in 
Virginia  (Josiah  Tucker,  Blackstone,  II.  60).  In  North  Carolina 
and  other  states,  property  was  seized  and  sold  by  virtue  of  an  act 
of  assembly  without  any  process  of  office  found.  For  an  analysis 
of  the  legislation  against  the  loyalists  in  the  different  states,  see 
C.  H.  Van  Tyne,  Loyalists  in  the  American  Revolution,  appendixes 
B  and  C.  \ 


1  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  66-70,  115-117. 


90 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


ber,  1776, 64  and  all  who  were  ordered  to  depart 
under  the  Statute  Staple  directing  merchants  to 
leave  Virginia.  Any  person  forfeiting  property 
in  another  state  for  loyalism  was  to  have  his 
property  in  Virginia  seized  and  sold.65 

Escheators  proceeded  to  hold  courts  of  inquest 
over  the  property  of  British  subjects  in  the  fall 
of  1779.  On  October  7  an  inquest  was  held  in 
Isle  of  Wight  County,  and  the  property  of  ten 
merchants  was  vested  in  the  commonwealth.86 
Inquests  were  ordered  to  be  held  over  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  George  William  Fairfax,  who  had  never 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance.67  The  law  of  May, 
1779,  with  its  sweeping  classification  of  “real 
British  subjects,”  condemned  the  property  of 
every  absentee  landlord  who  had  not  proved  that 
his  heart  was  with  the  patriots;  although  absent 
from  Virginia,  one  could  not  be  a  neutral  in  the 
conflict.  Petitions  from  the  absentee  or  his  agent 
prayed  for  one  reason  or  another  that  his  prop¬ 
erty  be  spared.  John  Baylor,68  Archibald  Mc¬ 
Call,69  and  Lucy  and  John  Paradise70  sent  peti¬ 
tions  to  the  assembly  in  October,  1779,  declaring 

64  See  above,  pp.  75-76. 

85  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  70-71. 

m  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  VIII.  272. 

87  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1776,  p.  25. 

“Ibid.,  pp.  17,  31. 

88  Ibid.,  p.  27,  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  304. 

70  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1779,  p.  20. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  91 


their  allegiance  to  Virginia,  pleading  extreme  cir¬ 
cumstances  or  unavoidable  absence  from  the  com¬ 
monwealth,  and  praying  that  their  estates  be  ex¬ 
empt  from  the  law.  Sarah  Jordome71  and  Eliza¬ 
beth  Ramsey72  had  gone  to  England  to  educate 
their  children  and  asked  that  their  estates  be 
saved.  Craven  Peyton,  manager  of  Lord  Fair¬ 
fax’s  estate,  asserted  that  the  inquest  held  over 
the  property  of  Denny  Fairfax  was  in  error; 
Fairfax  had  gone  to  England  in  1773  to  visit  rel¬ 
atives  and  intended  to  return  to  Virginia.  He 
requested  that  the  assembly  pass  an  act  to  prevent 
the  sale  of  the  property.73  Ebenezer  McHarg, 
David  Ross,  and  John  Fisher  asked  to  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  save  their 
property.74  “Sundry  inhabitants  of  Loudoun 
County”  protested  against  the  law  of  escheat  as 
indiscriminate;  they  thought  the  commonwealth 
should  go  no  further  than  sequestration.75  A  pe¬ 
tition  was  sent  from  Caroline  County  to  the  assem¬ 
bly  objecting  to  the  policy  of  selling  the  estates; 
the  petitioners  thought  the  policy  was,  unjust  and 
would  lead  to  difficulties  in  the  future.76 

71  Ibid.,  p.  4. 

72  Ibid.,  p.  15. 

73  Ibid.,  pp.  62-63.  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  413. 

74  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates  October  1779,  p.  27. 

76  Ibid. 

™  Ibid,,  p.  10.  Neither  the  petition  from  Caroline  nor  Loudoun 
Counties  are  among  the  legislative  petitions. 


92 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Governor  Jefferson  cautioned  the  assembly  not 
to  depend  too  much  upon  the  receipts  from  the 
sale  of  British  estates  as  a  source  of  revenue. 
Petitions  from  absentee  landlords  indicated  that 
the  plan  of  escheat  would  involve  much  litigation, 
and  probably  the  titles  would  not  be  clear  for  a 
generation.77  The  House  of  Delegates,  in  October, 
1779,  undertook  to  solve  some  of  the  problems 
connected  with  escheat.  A  committee  of  seven 
(later  increased  to  fifteen),  including  Patrick 
Henry,  Thomas  Nelson,  and  George  Mason,  in¬ 
vestigated  the  problem  of  selling  British  estates, 
examined  the  petitions  to  the  assembly,  and,  on 
November  16,  recommended  changes.78  The  law 
was  so  amended  as  to  confirm  all  bona  fide  pur¬ 
chasers  of  British  estates  before  May,  1779;  any 
citizen  of  Virginia  holding  a  mortgage  on  seques¬ 
tered  British  property  could  file  a  petition  in  chan¬ 
cery  and  stop  the  sale.  The  amended  law  also  pro¬ 
vided  that  anyone  who  had  left  Virginia  and  had 
gone  to  England  for  education  or  to  join  his 
family  could  have  his  property  restored  if  he 
would  return  and  claim  it  before  two  years  had 
elapsed  or,  in  case  of  a  minor,  before  he  reached 
his  majority.  That  sales  might  be  hastened,  it 

77  Jefferson,  Writings,  I&65. 

78  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1779,  pp.  16,  32, 
76,  89,  101. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  93 


was  provided  that  the  findings  of  the  court  of  in¬ 
quest  were  to  remain  in  the  general  court  one 
month,  not  one  year  as  provided  in  the  law  of 
May,  1779.79  The  purchaser’s  title,  derived  from 
the  commonwealth,  was  at  all  time  to  be  valid 
against  any  claim  whatsoever.  If  at  any  time  in 
the  future  the  findings  of  the  court  of  inquest 
should  prove  defective,  the  former  owner  could 
lay  claim  only  to  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.80  In 
anticipation  of  immediate  returns  from  the  sale  of 
sequestered  estates,  one  and  a  half  million  pounds 
was  appropriated  out  of  the  net  receipts  to  meet 
the  requisitions  of  Congress.81 

All  the  certificates  of  British  sequestered  prop¬ 
erty  kept  among  the  papers  of  the  council  “were 
lost  during  the  British  invasion  ;”82  but  there  re¬ 
main  three  sources  to  indicate  the  extent  of  the 
sales  and  the  amount  of  the  receipts.  First,  and  of 
most  importance,  are  the  books  in  the  land  office, 
where  all  sales  of  sequestered  lands  were  recorded. 
Before  1814  the  land  office  kept  no  separate 
records  of  the  sales  of  escheated  property,  but 
kept  the  papers  for  escheated  lands  on  a  separate 

,8  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  154. 

80  Ibid.,  p.  201.  The  law  was  evidently  framed  by  George 
Mason.  Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  October  1779,  pp.  120-29. 

81  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  165-71. 

“Jefferson,  Writings,  III.  37.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State 
Papers,  VII.  43-57 — a  report  of  the  papers  destroyed. 


94 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


file  until  the  grants  were  issued.  When  the  grants 
were  issued,  they  were  recorded  with  the  grants 
for  unappropriated  lands.83  This  method  of  re¬ 
cording  grants  makes  it  necessary  to  go  through 
all  of  the  land  books,  page  by  page,  and,  after 
most  careful  examination  and  tabulation,  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  estimate  exactly  from  these 
alone  the  amount  of  property  sold  under  the  se¬ 
questration  act  of  1779.  The  land  office  issued  no 
grants  for  escheated  property  in  many  of  the 
counties.  Second,  the  entries  in  the  auditor’s 
books  indicate  the  amount  paid  into  the  Virginia 
treasury  by  the  escheators.  The  escheators  in  a 
majority  of  the  counties  made  no  returns  what¬ 
soever  to  the  auditor.  It  is  possible  escheators 
sold  loyalist  property,  collected  for  the  sales,  but 
made  no  returns  or  irregular  returns.  Yet  it  is 
altogether  probable  that  the  commonwealth  sold 
no  loyalist  property  in  a  majority  of  the  counties ; 
the  auditor’s  books  check  fairly  accurately,  but 
not  in  all  instances,  with  the  records  in  the  land 
office.  Thirdly,  there  are  returns  from  some  of  the 
county  escheators,  incomplete  from  all  the  counties 
except  one  (Norfolk  County),  where  the  number 
of  loyalists  was  greatest.  Together,  these  three 

83  Letter  from  the  Register  of  the  Land  Office,  December  13, 
1820.  Pamphlet  in  the  Virginia  State  Library. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  95 


sources  give  an  all  but  complete  list  of  the  loyalist 
property  sold  in  Virginia. 

The  sale  of  sequestered  property  began  in 
1779.  On  December  13  of  that  year,  Thomas 
Hardy,  escheator  in  Isle  of  Wight,  sold  at  public 
auction  for  £67,377,  Virginia  currency,  the  loy¬ 
alist  property  condemned  by  a  court  of  inquest  in 
October.84  In  February  and  March,  1780,  prop¬ 
erty  in  Mecklenburg  County  was  sold  for  £29,- 
023. 85  In  August  Matthew  Godfrey,  escheator  in 
Norfolk  County,  sold  the  real  and  personal  prop¬ 
erty  of  fifty  loyalists  for  £987,239 ;  additional 
sales  in  May,  1783,  increased  the  returns  for 
escheated  property  in  that  county  to  approxi¬ 
mately  £1,000,000.86  The  escheator  from  Amherst 
paid  £454,709  into  the  auditor’s  office  from  the 
sale  of  loyalist  property;87  the  escheator  from 
Gloucester  paid  in  £220,463;88  from  Fluvanna, 
£465,721  ;89  and  from  Lancaster,  £172, 055. 90 

84  Auditor’s  Papers,  No.  15.  The  property  formerly  owned  by 
Oswald  and  Company  brought  £7040 — all  of  its  real  estate  in 
Smithfield.  A  house  and  lot  of  John  Williams  in  Smithfield 
sold  for  £1010 ;  property  of  Andrew  Lynn  in  Smithfield  brought 
£16,000;  a  lot  belonging  to  Hunter  and  Blair,  £150;  John  Good¬ 
rich’s  plantation  and  personal  property,  £39,200;  real  estate  of 
John  Hyndman,  £4573,  and  the  personal  property  of  John  Lynn, 
£104. 

86  Ibid.,  Dinwiddie  and  Company,  Cunningham  and  Company, 
and  Andrew  Spiers,  all  merchants,  were  the  heaviest  sufferers. 

88  Ibid. 

87  Auditor’s  Cash  Books,  passim. 

88  Ibid. 

88  Ibid. 

80  Ibid. 


96 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


The  value  of  the  personal  property  of  loyalists 
forfeited  to  the  commonwealth  was  insignificant. 
Merchants  banished  under  the  Statute  Staple  were 
permitted  to  remove  whatever  property  they 
could;  the  chattels  they  did  leave  behind  deteri¬ 
orated  in  value  or  were  misappropriated  during 
the  period  of  sequestration.  In  Norfolk  County, 
for  example,  of  the  £1,000,000  paid  into  the 
treasury  by  the  escheator,  only  £50,212  was  for 
personal  property;  £48,910  of  this  came  for  the 
sale  of  Negroes  that  had  been  left  on  the  planta¬ 
tions.  Occasionally  the  escheator’s  returns  note 
an  office  desk,  a  chair,  picture,  wagon,  or  drink¬ 
ing  glasses.91 

An  examination  of  the  records  in  the  land 
office  indicates  that  prior  to  1790  that  office  issued 
titles  for  34,066  acres  of  land  escheated  to  the 
commonwealth  as  British  property.92  The  great¬ 
er  part  of  the  escheated  real  property  was  in  towns 
and  villages — warehouses,  stores,  dwelling  houses 
and  undeveloped  lots,  formerly  the  property  of 
British  merchants  who  had  joined  Dunmore  or 
who  had  left  Virginia  when  the  Statute  Staple 
was  put  in  force.  In  Norfolk  County  ninety-two 
deeds  were  issued  for  city  property  and  nineteen 

91  Auditor’s  Papers,  No.  IS.  (A  box  of  papers  on  escheated 
property.)  • 

93  Patent  Books,  A-Z,  passim. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  97 


deeds  for  rural  property.93  There  are  records  in 
the  land  office  of  approximately  one  hundred  and 
fifty  lots  sold  in  Blanford,  Smithfield,  Suffolk, 
Alexandria,  Manchester,  and  Petersburg,  and  the 
return  from  these  sales  form  a  large  part  of  the 
receipts  from  the  counties  in  which  these  towns 
are  located.94  Paul  Loyall  purchased  one  and  a 
half  acres  and  a  building  in  Norfolk,  formerly 
the  property  of  William  Orange,  for  £50,000.95 
Henry  Lee  purchased  four  lots  in  Dumfries,  for¬ 
merly  the  property  of  Cunningham  and  Company, 
for  £13,320.96  John  Goodrich’s  city  property  in 

1,3  Auditor’s  Papers,  No.  17.  This  box  of  papers  contains  com¬ 
plete  accounts  of  sequestered  property  in  Norfolk.  Among  the 
British  subjects  whose  property  in  Norfolk  County  was  seques¬ 
tered  and  sold,  were:  John  Greenwood,  £51,500;  Andrew  Steph¬ 
enson,  £1100;  Thomas  McKnight,  £1450;  William  Farrar,  £12,900; 
Benjamin  Knight,  £8500;  Andrew  Sprowle,  £241,380;  Willoughby 
Morgan,  £500;  Robert  Gilmore,  £11,200;  James  Campbell.  £15,- 
637;  Niel  Jamieson,  £37,100;  Talbot  Thompson,  £6000;  Thomas 
Applewhite,  £30,000;  James  Dunn,  £2200;  James  Davidson, 
£10,700;  Jonathan  Flibeck,  £28,650;  Joshua  Hodges,  £850; 
Thomas  Farrar,  £1600;  John  Crammond,  £9200;  William  Chisholm, 
£43,850;  William  Orange,  £98,200;  James  Campbell  Calvert  and 
Company,  £9000;  John  Hardy,  £4600;  William  Johnson,  £2600; 
John  Ballatine,  £5100;  Collins  Wray,  £9900;  John  Agnew,  £47.400; 
Roger  Stuart,  £16,400;  John  Goodrich,  Sr.,  £60,150;  Robert 
Shedden,  £67,200;  James  Miller,  £14,150;  Benjamin  Bannerman, 
£29,660;  Thomas  Stewart,  £34,962;  William  Rankin,  £4500; 
Alexander  Montgomery,  £4500;  John  Goodrich,  Jr.,  £4000;  John 
Brown,  £3400;  James  Hodges,  £2200;  John  Greenwood,  £1500; 
Robert  Gilmore,  £4000;  George  and  John  Bowness,  £53,410;  John 
Ewing,  £10,100. 

M  Auditor’s  Papers,  No.  17.  Patent  Books,  passim. 

M  Patent  Book,  L.  524. 

m  Ibid.,  A,  438. 


98 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Norfolk  was  sold  to  Richard  Nester  for  £57,000  ;97 
Thomas  Allmand  purchased  the  Goodrich  planta¬ 
tion  in  Nansemond  County  for  £22,000,  and  An¬ 
drew  Mackie  bought  the  plantation  in  Isle  of 
Wight  for  £36,000.98  The  Norfolk  property  of 
Andrew  Sprowle,  President  of  the  Virginia  Mer¬ 
chants  Association,  was  sold  to  twelve  persons 
on  August  18,  1780,  for  £239,220."  Cunning¬ 
ham  and  Company  had  property  in  Chesterfield, 
Mecklenburg,  Dinwiddie,  Prince  William,  Henri¬ 
co,  and  Lunenburg  Counties  sequestered  and  sold. 
It  was  the  property  of  the  foreign-born  colonial 
merchant  and  not  the  property  of  the  Virginia 
planter  that  was  sequestered  and  sold  during  the 
Revolution.  The  auditor’s  cash  books  have  en¬ 
tries  totalling  £3,041,167,  paid  into  the  state 
treasury  for  the  sale  of  escheated  property,  real 
and  personal.100  With  the  exception  of  £13,126, 
this  money  was  paid  to  the  commonwealth  prior 
to  1782  in  depreciated  paper  currency;  the  bene¬ 
fits  to  the  state  were  small.101 

91  Patent  Book,  K,  113. 

98  Auditor’s  Papers,  No.  17. 

99  Ibid. 

100  Auditor’s  Books,  1779-1795,  passim. 

101  By  April  5,  1780,  county  escheators  had  paid  £721,000  into 
the  treasury;  from  May  to  August,  1780,  £1,135,106,  and  during 
the  last  five  months  of  1780,  £954,653  were  paid  into  the  treasury, 
making  a  total  of  £2,811,744  prior  to  January  1,  1781.  In  1781, 
£148,330;  in  1782,  £9400;  in  1783,  £6595,  and  in  1785,  £131  were 
paid  to  the  auditor  by  the  county  escheators  and  sheriffs  for  the 
sale  of  escheated  property  (Auditor’s  Books). 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  99 


Not  all  of  the  escheated  property  was  sold.  The 
act  providing  for  the  sale  of  loyalist  property 
stipulated  that  escheated  real  estate  in  Richmond 
was  to  have  the  title  of  the  commonwealth  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  process  of  office  found,  and  the  prop¬ 
erty  was  to  be  used  for  such  purposes  as  the 
state  might  direct.102  The  property  of  James  Mc¬ 
Dowell  was  set  apart  for  the  auditor’s  office,  that 
of  French  Crawford  for  the  treasurer’s  office.103 
The  building  of  Ninan  Ninzies  was  leased  to 
Penet,  Windel  and  Company  as  a  repair  shop 
for  the  ordnance  department  ;104  until  the  capi- 
tol  was  completed  in  1789,  the  assembly  met  in  a 
house  that  had  belonged  to  Cunningham  and 
Company.105 

In  addition  to  property  set  apart  for  the  state 
government,  other  escheated  estates  were  given 
to  schools.  The  lands  in  Kentucky  belonging  to 
Robert  McKensie,  Henry  Collins,  and  Alexander 
McKee,  with  all  other  escheated  lands  in  Ken¬ 
tucky,  not  to  exceed  twelve  thousand  acres,  were 
granted  to  Transylvania  University.106  Four 
hundred  and  twelve  acres  in  Prince  Edward 

102  Executive  Papers,  October,  1786.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Vir¬ 
ginia,  X.  67-71. 

108  Executive  Papers,  October,  1786. 

1W  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1779,  p.  108. 

105  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1783,  p.  91. 

108  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  287;  XI.  282,  287. 


100 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


County,  formerly  the  property  of  Alexander 
Spiers  and  Company,  British  merchants,  were 
given  to  Hampden  and  Sidney  College.107  The 
lands  of  Robert  Bristow  in  Prince  William  County 
escheated  to  the  commonwealth  in  1779  and  were 
wastefully  administered  by  the  state  for  fifty 
years ;  they  were  eventually  vested  in  the  Literary 
Fund  and  by  that  fund  were  divided  and  sold  in 
1834.108 

Other  sequestrations  and  sales  involved  dis¬ 
putes  and  litigation.  The  real  and  personal  prop¬ 
erty  of  John  Hamilton,  who  had  joined  the  British 
in  1775,  was  escheated  and  offered  for  sale.  Chris¬ 
topher  Godwin  petitioned  the  House  of  Delegates 
that  the  property  in  question  did  not  belong  to 
Hamilton  but  had  been  leased  to  him  by  the  peti¬ 
tioner.  The  property  was  restored  to  Godwin.109 
Lands  granted  to  John  Connolly  by  Lord  Dun- 
more  were  sequestered  in  1780.  Immediately  after 
the  war,  John  Campbell,  who  had  been  a  prisoner 
in  the  British  lines,  returned  and  claimed  that  he 
and  Joseph  Simons  owned  part  of  the  land  and 
held  a  mortgage  against  Connolly  for  the  re¬ 
mainder.  The  state  ordered  Connolly’s  share  to  be 

107  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  392. 

108  Acts  of  Assembly,  1822-23,  p.  86.  Acts  of  Assembly,  1833-34, 
p.  25. 

109  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  207.  Journal  of  House  of 
Delegates,  October  1779,  pp.  34.  72,  94.  Legislative  Petitions, 
No.  407. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  101 


sold  and  the  mortgage  of  Campbell  and  Simon 
paid.110 

The  assembly  was  petitioned  to  restore  other 
estates  that  had  been  sequestered,  or,  if  sold,  to 
reimburse  the  former  owner  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  law  of  October,  1779.  Walter 
King  Cole  was  permitted  to  “heir”  the  property 
of  Walter  King  that  had  been  escheated.111  The 
lands  of  John  Harmer  had  been  sequestered  and 
his  slaves  seized.  John  Harmer,  pleading  his  Vir¬ 
ginia  citizenship,  was  given  possession  of  the  lands 
and  was  paid  for  the  slaves  that  had  been  sold.112 
The  lands  of  Samuel  Gist,  a  British  subject,  had 
escheated  to  the  state,  but  were  restored  to  Mary 
Anderson,  his  daughter  and  heiress.113  The  as¬ 
sembly  stopped  the  sale  of  lands  belonging  to 
Richard  Goodall,  in  Caroline  County,  and  directed 
those  lands  that  had  not  been  sold  be  given  to 
Parke  Goodall;  Parke  Goodall  was  reimbursed 
for  the  lands  disposed  of  by  the  state.114  The 
escheated  estate  of  John  Kerr,  a  British  subject, 
was  permitted  to  go  to  his  grandchildren  and  later 
was  restored  by  law  to  Edward  Kerr,  a  son,  when 
he  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Virginia.115  The 

uo  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  227,  474,  321;  XII.  395. 
m  Ibid.,  XI.  35. 
iaIbid.;  also  X.  371. 
m  Ibid.,  XI.  55. 

114  Ibid. 

1,5  Ibid.,  p.  148;  XII.  681. 


102 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


estates  of  John  Mills,  of  Fairfax  County,  and 
James  Buchanan,  of  Falmouth,  British  merchants, 
were  seized  by  the  state  when  the  owners  died. 
Each  estate  was  later  restored  to  executors  to 
support  the  needy  widows.116  John  Sutton  came 
from  Great  Britain  and  took  the  oath  of  allegiance 
upon  the  death  of  his  uncle,  James  Connell,  of 
Alexandria,  and  was  permitted  to  inherit  the  es¬ 
tate.117  The  commonwealth  purchased  the  es¬ 
cheated  property  of  Edward  Baine.  In  May, 
1781,  a  law  was  passed  providing  that  the  prop¬ 
erty  should  be  restored  and  the  owner  indemnified 
for  the  use  of  timber  if  Baine  would  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance.118 

Numerous  claims  were  brought  against  the  es¬ 
tates  that  were  sold.  James  Maxwell  and  Richard 
Evers  Lee  filed  claims  against  Andrew  Sprowle 
for  one  thousand  pounds.119  The  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  is  sprinkled  with  claims 
brought  against  the  Goodrich  estate.  Mary  Hurt 
presented  a  claim  of  five  hundred  pounds  against 
the  sequestered  estate  of  John  Bowness.120 

A  bill  to  suspend  the  act  on  escheats  and  for¬ 
feitures  was  drafted  by  Nicholas,  Hunter,  and 

11,1  Ibid.,  XI.  155;  XII.  203. 

111  Hening,  Satutes  of  Virginia,  X.  372. 

118  Ibid.,  p.  452. 

119 Ibid .,  XIII.  211,  219. 

120  Ibid.,  p.  82. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  103 


Henry  and  presented  to  the  House  of  Delegates 
on  December  1,  1781,  six  weeks  after  Cornwallis’s 
surrender.  It  was  discussed  in  the  committee 
of  the  whole  on  December  14  and  rejected.121 
Two  weeks  later  a  bill  was  passed  appropriating 
all  funds  derived  from  the  sale  of  sequestered 
estates  for  the  redemption  of  the  depreciated 
soldiers’  certificates.122  In  October,  1784,  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  the  assembly 
passed  an  act  declaring  there  should  be  no  future 
confiscation,  but  expressly  provided  that  this  act 
should  in  no  way  affect  the  sale  of  lands  that 
already  had  been  sequestered.123 

The  provision  of  the  law  of  October,  1784, 
which  safeguarded  to  the  commonwealth  lands 
already  sequestered  but  not  sold,  protected  Vir¬ 
ginia’s  claim  to  the  Fairfax  estate.  The  Fairfax 
heirs  owned  lands,  approximating  5,282,000  acres, 
between  the  Rappahannock  and  the  Potomac 
Rivers.  Lord  Thomas,  sixth  Lord  Fairfax,  held 
one  sixth  of  this  property  in  fee  and,  as  the  heir 
to  the  Fairfax  estate,  held  the  remaining  five- 
sixths  by  entail.  Although  Lord  Fairfax  had  been 
resident  in  Virginia  for  nearly  half  a  century 
prior  to  his  death,  he  did  not  subscribe  to  the 

m  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1781,  pp.  24,  36,  39. 

Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  462. 

121  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  446. 


104 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


oath  of  allegiance.  From  his  land  office  at  Green¬ 
way  Court,  near  Fredericksburg,  he  granted  lands 
throughout  the  Revolution,  remained  in  undis¬ 
turbed  possession  of  his  property,  and  his  tenants 
were  permitted  to  deduct  from  their  taxes  the 
quitrents  paid  to  him.  He  died  two  months  after 
the  surrender  of  Lord  Cornwallis,  bequeathing 
his  one-sixth  interest  held  in  fee  to  his  nephew, 
Denny  Martin,  then  residing  in  England.  The 
remaining  five-sixths  interest  held  by  entail  went  to 
Thomas,  Lord  Fairfax’s  brother,  Robert,  seventh 
Lord  Fairfax,  likewise  an  Englishman.124 

Thomas,  Lord  Fairfax,  the  non-juring  Vir¬ 
ginian,  was  unmolested  by  the  Virginia  assembly, 
but  his  heirs,  Englishmen,  were  not  so  fortunate. 
In  October,  1782,  the  assembly,  fearing  the  quit- 
rents  might  fall  to  alien  enemies,  sequestered  the 
rents  in  the  Northern  Neck  into  the  treasury  of 
the  state.125  In  1785  an  act  of  the  assembly 
abolished  these  quitrents  and  directed  that  the 
land  books  in  the  proprietor’s  land  office  be  moved 
to  the  state  land  office.  All  grants  and  surveys 
based  on  entries  in  the  proprietor’s  office  were  to 
be  issued  by  the  state  land  office,  and  unappro¬ 
priated  lands  in  the  Northern  Neck  were  to  be 

124  E.  C.  Broome,  Northern  Neck  Lands,  an  accurate  and  inter¬ 
esting  study  of  the  Northern  Neck. 

125  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  128. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  105 


granted  by  the  state  on  the  same  terms  as  other 
unpatented  lands.126  The  land  office  at  Richmond, 
by  virtue  of  this  law,  resumed  the  granting  of 
lands  where  it  had  been  left  off  upon  the  death  of 
Thomas,  Lord  Fairfax.127 

Denny  Martin  Fairfax,  alias  Denny  Martin, 
was  not  disturbed  by  the  law  of  1782  in  his  pos¬ 
session  of  the  Manor  of  Leeds,  the  South  Manor, 
and  several  smaller  estates,  amounting  in  all  to 
approximately  two  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
acres,  as  these  estates  had  been  surveyed  and 
were  appropriated  lands.  The  heir,  however,  re¬ 
fused  to  recognize  this  law  of  1782  as  sequestering 
either  the  appropriated  or  unappropriated  lands, 
but  merely  recognized  it  as  a  law  abolishing  quit- 
rents  due  to  him  from  his  estate.  Nothing  was 
done  by  the  state  to  complete  a  title  to  any  of  the 
lands  by  the  process  of  office  found,  and,  except 
in  so  far  as  the  law  directing  the  books  to  be  re¬ 
moved  from  the  proprietor’s  land  office  to  the 
land  office  of  the  state  divested  the  proprietor  of 
the  title,  the  lands  legally  belonged  to  the  proprie¬ 
tor.  The  Treaty  of  Paris  prohibited  any  future 

IM  Ibid.,  XII.  112. 

m  Northern  Neck  Land  Books,  passim.  Virginia  continued  to 
keep  the  record  of  lands  in  the  Northern  Neck  separate  from  the 
lands  in  the  west.  The  only  change  in  the  machinery  of  the 
execution  of  the  grant  was  that  the  governor,  and  not  the  pro¬ 
prietor,  signed  the  grants. 


106 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


confiscated  of  loyalist  property,  and,  by  the  law 
of  October,  1784,  Virginia  gave  a  pledge  not  to 
violate  this  part  of  the  treaty.  The  Fairfax  heirs, 
contending  that  the  law  of  1782  had  not  seques¬ 
tered  their  property,  but  had  only  abolished  the 
quitrents  and  moved  the  land  office  and  that  the 
property  could  not  be  sequestered  or  confiscated 
without  violating  the  Treaty  of  Paris  and  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  law  of  1784,  continued  to  grant  titles  to  the 
unappropriated  lands.  The  state,  contending  that 
sequestration  of  the  disputed  lands  had  begun  be¬ 
fore  the  Treaty  of  Paris  and  therefore  that  the 
obligations  of  the  treaty  did  not  extend  to  the 
Fairfax  estate,  proceeded  to  grant  the  unappropri¬ 
ated  lands  from  its  office  in  Richmond.  The  pro¬ 
prietors  took  steps  to  evict  anyone  who  claimed 
parts  of  the  disputed  lands  by  a  title  from  the 
state. 

Title  to  lands  in  the  Northern  Neck  remained 
in  this  unsettled  condition  until  1792.  In  that 
year  renewed  agitation  against  the  British  was 
occasioned  by  the  hearing  of  the  British  debt 
cases  in  the  recently  established  federal  courts.128 
In  March,  1793,  a  contributor  to  the  Virginia 
Sentinel  and  Gazette,  writing  under  the  pseudo¬ 
nym  Crito,  appealed  to  the  Virginia  assembly  to 


^  See  below,  p.  163f . 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  107 


have  the  title  to  the  vast  Fairfax  estate  investi¬ 
gated.  The  writer  complained  that  the  property 
was  held  by  an  alien  enemy,  that  from  four  to  six 
thousand  pounds  yearly  had  been  paid  to  the  late 
Lord  Fairfax,  and  that,  during  his  life,  the  pro¬ 
prietor  had  collected  no  less  than  two  hundred 
thousand  pounds  from  inhabitants  of  the  North¬ 
ern  Neck.  The  Revolution  was  incomplete  while 
such  privileged  inequalities  remained.  Crito 
attempted  to  arouse  his  fellow-citizens  by  antici¬ 
pating  the  day  when  these  vast  stretches  of  land 
would  form  several  congressional  districts  con¬ 
trolled  by  loyalist  landowners,  a  bulwark  of 
toryism  and  the  stronghold  of  British  interests.129 
Such  an  appeal  was  certain  to  arouse  republican 
Virginia. 

Recent  settlers  on  the  disputed  lands,  many  of 
them  Germans,  were  anxious  to  have  their  claims 
to  the  lands  quieted;  they  petitioned  the  Virginia 
assembly  in  1793  for  relief.  The  assembly  of 
November,  1793,  requested  the  governor  to  in¬ 
vestigate  the  title  to  the  Fairfax  lands  in  the 
Northern  Neck  and  to  take  the  proper  steps  to 
quiet  all  claims  against  the  state.130  The  execu¬ 
tive  called  upon  the  state  and  county  courts  to 

120  Virginia  Sentinel  and  Gazette,  March  11,  1793. 

130  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1793,  pp.  129, 
131. 


108 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


make  a  report  of  all  escheated  property.  Twenty- 
eight  escheators  were  appointed  during  the  first 
six  months  of  1794  to  fill  offices  that  in  some  in¬ 
stances  had  been  vacant  for  several  years,  and 
each  escheator  was  instructed  to  proceed  with  es¬ 
cheats  that  had  begun  under  the  act  of  October, 
1779;131  circular  letters  were  sent  to  all  escheators 
calling  for  complete  reports  on  property  that  had 
escheated.132  Robert  Brooke,  the  attorney-gen¬ 
eral,  was  directed  to  aid  escheators  in  establish¬ 
ing  the  title  of  the  commonwealth.133  Sequestra¬ 
tion  and  confiscation  were  taken  up  with  vigor 
where  they  had  been  left  off  a  decade  before. 
Jefferson  and  his  associates  were  forming  the 
anti-British,  Republican  party. 

Proceeding  upon  the  basis  that  the  law  of  1782 
sequestering  the  quitrents  in  the  Northern  Neck 
and  directing  the  removal  of  the  land  books  to 
Richmond  was  the  beginning  of  escheat,  courts 
of  inquest  were  held  over  property  claimed  by  the 
Fairfax  estate  in  Frederick,  Fauquier,  Shenan¬ 
doah,  Fairfax,  and  Berkeley  Counties.134  In 
Fauquier,  where  an  estate  of  ninety  thousand 
acres  was  involved,  the  verdict  was  for  the  com- 

131  Council  Journals,  XXIII.  71-217,  passim. 

132  Ibid.,  p.  53. 

133  Ibid.,  p.  62. 

134  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  VII.  4,  5,  131,  158,  255, 
286,  296,  297,  352,  353,  470. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  109 


monwealth.135  Denny  Martin  Fairfax  took  an 
appeal  to  the  district  court,  and,  when  that  court 
upheld  the  findings  of  the  county  court  of  inquest, 
he  carried  his  appeal  to  the  Virginia  Court  of 
Appeals.  In  Frederick  County,  the  decision  of 
the  local  court  of  inquest  was  against  the  com¬ 
monwealth;  in  other  counties,  the  courts  of  in¬ 
quest  could  reach  no  decision.136  Following  the 
appeal  by  Denny  Martin  Fairfax  from  the  deci¬ 
sion  in  Fauquier  County  to  the  Virginia  Court  of 
Appeals,  the  governor  in  council  advised  the  es- 
cheators  “in  those  counties  in  which  any  other 
lands  of  the  said  Denny  Fairfax  may  be  lying 
not  to  proceed  to  take  inquest  thereon”  until  a 
decision  is  reached  by  the  courts.137  Republican 
antipathy  to  the  courts  began  before  1800. 

In  the  meantime,  Denny  Martin  Fairfax  had 
continued  to  grant  titles  to  unappropriated  lands 
in  the  Northern  Neck.  The  legal  contest  be¬ 
came  a  three-cornered  one:  The  Fairfax  heirs 
claiming  under  old  charters  and  grants,  the  state 
claiming  under  Revolutionary  confiscation  and 
sequestration  laws,  and  the  settlers  claiming  by 
a  title  from  one  of  the  above  or  by  occupancy. 
The  situation  was  somewhat  clarified  when  a  land 

135  Ibid.,  pp.  352-53. 

Ibid.,  pp.  131,  296,  297. 

137  Council  Journals,  XXIII.  153;  Governor’s  Letter  Book, 
1794-1800,  pp.  9-11. 


110 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


syndicate,  formed  by  Robert  Morris  of  Philadel¬ 
phia  and  including  Morris’  son-in-law,  James 
Marshall,  James  Marshall’s  brother,  John  Mar¬ 
shall,  Rawleigh  Colston,  a  brother-in-law  of  the 
Marshalls,  and  Henry  Lee,  Governor  of  Vir¬ 
ginia,  in  1793  or  1794,  arranged  for  the  purchase 
of  the  interest  held  in  fee  by  Denny  Martin  Fair¬ 
fax.  The  result  of  the  tangle  was  a  compromise 
between  the  state  and  the  land  syndicate  claiming 
under  the  Fairfax  title.  It  was  agreed  that  all 
lands  that  had  not  been  appropriated  before  1793 
were  to  be  ceded  to  the  state,  and  the  state  was  to 
relinquish  all  title  to  lands  that  had  in  any  way 
been  appropriated  by  the  Fairfax  heirs  prior  to 
1793. 138  This  compromise,  effected  in  1796, 
settled  the  dispute  to  all  practical  purposes.  The 
state  acquired  little  or  no  land  by  this  arrange¬ 
ment,  for  the  Fairfax  heirs  or  squatters  had  sur¬ 
veyed,  granted,  or  settled  upon  practically  all  the 
lands  claimed  by  the  Fairfax  estate.  The  benefi¬ 
ciaries  were  the  settlers  upon  the  land,  and  the 
land  syndicate  that  purchased  the  surveyed  but 
ungranted  Fairfax  lands  for  their  title  was  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  compromise  as  valid,  whether  it  came 
from  the  proprietor  or  from  the  state.  It  was  a 
triumph  of  Republican  agrarianism  in  Virginia. 

138  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1796,  pp.  89. 
114,  52,  61,  108.  Samuel  Shepherd,  Statutes  at  Large,  II.  22. 


LEGISLATION  AND  FINANCE  1 1 1 


Later  litigation  in  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  was  important  for  its  political  and  constitu¬ 
tional  significance;  the  compromise  of  1796  set¬ 
tled  the  practical  question  of  who  should  possess 
the  land.139 


Legislation  against  the  loyalists  was  effective 
and  successful  in  so  far  as  it  purposed  to  suppress 
the  disaffected.  As  a  source  of  revenue  to  the 
state,  loyalist  legislation  entirely  failed.  Approx¬ 
imately  four  million  pounds  of  depreciated  paper 
money  was  paid  into  the  Virginia  treasury  for 
escheated  property  and  British  debts,  and  part 
of  this  was  later  repaid  to  claimants  and  debtors. 
The  amount  collected  from  loyalist  property  was 
insignificant  compared  with  the  paper  issues  of 
the  state.  The  real  property  that  was  seized  and 
sold  was  small,  especially  in  the  rural  districts. 
Sequestration  and  sales  during  and  after  the  war 
did  not  evict  large  plantation  owners  and  make 
way  for  a  new  social  and  economic  order.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  policy  of  sequestra¬ 
tion  and  sale  of  lands  in  Virginia  discriminated 
against  the  foreigner  rather  than  against  the 
enemy.  With  the  exception  of  Andrew  Sprowle 
and  the  Goodrich  family,  the  property  sold  be¬ 
longed  to  persons  whose  actual  residence  was  in 

13*  See  Hunter  vs.  Fairfax,  1  Mumford,  218-238.  Fairfax  vs. 
Hunter,  7  Crunch,  686-696. 


112 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


England.  The  Corbins,  the  Wormleys,  the 
Byrds,  Archibald  Ritchie,  and  Philip  Grymes  re¬ 
mained  in  undisturbed  possession  of  their  estates. 
Virginia,  however,  did  come  into  possession  of  a 
vast  domain  in  the  west.  Many  sons  of  the  colo¬ 
nial  aristocracy,  already  in  debt,  and  ruined  by  the 
economic  upheaval  of  the  Revolution,  disposed  of 
their  estates  in  the  east  and  sought  their  fortunes 
in  this  undeveloped  country.140  The  winning  of 
the  territory  in  the  west,  not  the  confiscation  of 
lands  in  the  east,  paved  the  way  for  a  new  social 
order  in  Virginia. 

140  Lord  Carmarthen  complained  to  John  Adams  that  British 
merchants  were  losing  debts  due  from  Virginia  by  migration  of 
the  debtors  to  Kentucky.  William  Grayson  to  James  Madison, 
November  1,  1785;  May  22,  1786.  Letters  to  Madison,  Madison 
Papers,  XIV.  Sheriffs  defaulted  and  went  west.  Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  IV.  595-96. 


CHAPTER  IV 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS,  1782-1788 

The  payment  of  debts  into  the  state  loan  office 
and  the  sale  of  escheated  property  in  Virginia 
brought  no  relief  to  the  finances  of  the  state. 
The  four  million  pounds  of  depreciated  paper  re¬ 
ceived  from  these  sources  failed  to  check  the 
steady  depreciation  of  the  currency  that  inevita¬ 
bly  followed  each  new  issue.  When  the  sales  of 
escheated  property  began  in  December,  1779, 
£2,636,682  of  paper  money  had  been  issued,  with 
taxes  pledged  to  redeem  it.  Tax  collections  were 
deficient ;  the  currency  declined  in  value  so  rapid¬ 
ly  that  even  had  the  taxes  been  collected,  assess¬ 
ments  would  have  been  insufficint  to  meet  expen¬ 
ditures.  In  May,  1780,  the  amount  of  paper  cur¬ 
rency  was  nearly  doubled  by  an  issue  of  £2,000,- 
000 ;  duties  and  a  tax  on  windows  were  pledged  to 
redeem  the  issue,  and,  should  this  prove  deficient, 
the  public  buildings  at  the  old  capital,  Williams¬ 
burg,  were  to  be  sold.1  In  October  of  the  same 
year,  the  treasurer  was  authorized  to  issue  £6,000,- 
000,  and  if  this  amount  was  inadequate,  with  the 


1  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  279. 


114 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


advice  of  the  governor  in  council,  he  could  issue 
an  additional  £4,000,000.  This  currency  was  to 
pass  at  the  rate  of  forty  to  one,  and  at  some  fu¬ 
ture  date  provisions  were  to  be  made  for  its  re¬ 
demption.2  The  auditor  emitted  the  entire  £10,- 
000, 000.3  One  and  two-thirds  million  pounds  ad¬ 
ditional  was  issued  to  sink  Virginia’s  quota,  due  to 
the  Continental  Congress.  The  next  year  the 
treasurer  was  driven  to  extreme  measures  by  the 
British  invasion,  and  the  government  printing 
press  issued  an  additional  £36,125,000.4  The  ef¬ 
fect  was  inevitable.  In  January,  1781,  the  rate  of 
exchange  was  seventy-five  to  one ;  in  April  it  was 
one  hundred  to  one;  by  August  seven  hundred, 
and  by  December  one  thousand  to  one.5  In  July, 
1781,  the  currency  ceased  to  be  legal  tender,  and, 
after  November,  the  state  refused  to  accept  it  for 
taxes.  The  receipts  of  the  state,  from  October, 
1780,  to  October,  1781,  were  £60,823,216,  includ¬ 
ing  the  paper  money  emitted,  but  at  the  end  of  the 
year  the  treasury  had  a  deficit  of  £3,277,000.6  In 
May,  1781,  although  by  law  the  money  was  legal 
tender  at  forty  to  one,  an  army  officer,  in  behalf  of 
his  soldiers,  complained  that  no  one  would  accept 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  347-50. 

3  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1781,  p.  60. 

4 Ibid . 

5Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  462-70. 

"  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1781,  p.  60. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


115 


the  money  the  soldiers  received  for  their  services 
for  more  than  three  hundred  to  one.7  Horses  were 
valued  at  from  three  thousand  to  four  thousand 
pounds  each,  cows  at  five  hundred,  pigs  one  hun¬ 
dred,  Negroes  at  ten  thousand.8  Peter  Hogg,  in 
October,  complained  that  all  public  faith  was  gone 
and  that  the  people  would  not  sell  provisions  to 
the  army  for  paper  money  at  any  price.9  The 
county  lieutenant  of  Botetourt  wrote  to  the  gover¬ 
nor  that  paper  currency  was  no  longer  any  in¬ 
ducement  to  anyone  to  furnish  supplies  for  the 
army  or  to  enlist  in  the  militia.10  In  October  and 
November,  cattle  and  sheep  were  driven  into 
Norfolk  in  large  numbers  from  North  Carolina, 
but  the  army  could  buy  none  for  paper  money.11 
Colonel  John  Cropper,  county  lieutenant  for 
Accomac  County,  expressed  his  regret  in  Novem¬ 
ber  that  “Mr.  Gooter  had  been  compelled  to  re¬ 
sign”  his  position  as  agent  for  supplying  the 
troops  because  his  salary  of  four  thousand  pounds 
of  tobacco,  or  its  equivalent  in  state  money,  was 
insufficient — “it  would  not  feed  his  wife.”12  A 
man  would  rather  have  five  shillings  in  ready 

7  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  86. 

8  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  VII.  41. 

8  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  539. 

10  Ibid.,  pp.  382,  586. 

11  Ibid.,  p.  546. 

u  Ibid.,  p.  595. 


116 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


money  for  his  service  than  an  order  to  be  car¬ 
ried  to  Richmond  for  five  pounds;  “the  deprecia¬ 
tion  has  been  so  rapid  that  before  a  man  could 
get  his  money  it  was  of  no  value — one  hard  dollar 
will  purchase  more  than  1000  of  the  best  state 
paper  in  circulation.”13  The  men  and  officers  of 
the  Virginia  line  presented  a  lengthy  appeal  to  the 
Virginia  assembly  in  November,  complaining  of 
the  great  hardship  of  being  paid  in  worthless 
paper.14 

Congress,  after  the  emission  of  $241,552,780, 
had  closed  the  press,  and,  to  avoid  the  worthless 
paper  with  which  the  states  met  their  requisitions, 
called  for  specific  articles  by  a  resolution  of  Octo¬ 
ber  19,  1779.  These  articles,  when  collected,  were 
almost  useless  to  the  government ;  the  problem  of 
collecting  supplies  and  moving  them  to  places 
wanted  was  an  insurmountable  difficulty.  Con¬ 
tinental  bills  had  stood  at  forty  to  one  in  March, 
1780,  and  by  the  following  January  were  one 
hundred  to  one ;  by  May  they  had  ceased  to  pass 
as  currency.15  On  October  16,  1781,  Robert  Mor- 

13  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  p.  595. 

”  Ibid.,  p.  629. 

16  D.  R.  Dewey,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  ch.  ii, 
passim.  By  September  10,  1779,  Congress  had  ordered  $202,- 
011,660  to  be  issued.  The  emissions  ordered  on  February  12, 
1776,  and  November  2,  1776,  amounting  to  $562,780,  had  not  been 
printed;  $41,500,000  had  been  called  in.  There  were  $159,948,880 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


117 


ris  wrote  to  Governor  Nelson  that  the  finances  of 
the  country  had  collapsed;  the  war  no  longer 
could  be  financed  with  paper  currency;  foreign 
governments  refused  to  aid  a  government  that 
did  nothing  to  help  itself ;  “specific  supplies  are 
at  once  burthensome  to  the  people  and  almost  use¬ 
less  to  the  government”,  and  recourse  must  be 
had  to  hard  money.16  On  October  19,  1780,  the 
Continental  treasurer  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the 
states  reviewing  the  financial  situation  and  call¬ 
ing  upon  them  to  do  something  to  reform  the 
system.17  The  difficulties  in  Virginia  with  her 
own,  as  well  as  the  Continental,  currency  amply 
illustrated  the  hopelessness  of  the  situation. 

In  March,  1781,  Virginia  undertook  to  place 
its  currency  on  a  sounder  basis.  An  act  of 
the  assembly  provided  that  all  paper  turned  in 
for  taxes  should  be  burned,  except  the  two  issues 
authorized  in  October,  1780.18  The  military  in¬ 
vasion  of  that  year  necessitated  the  issue  of  an 
endless  supply  of  paper,  and  the  redemption  poli¬ 
cy  was  checked  when  the  legislature  in  May,  1781, 
repealed  a  law  of  the  previous  year  anticipating  a 

of  Continental  currency  in  circulation  on  September  10,  1779. 
Approximately  $400,000  were  issued  subsequent  to  this  report. 
Jefferson  Papers,  IV.  680. 

10  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  II.  550. 

17  Ibid.,  p.  553. 

16  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  400. 


118 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


general  funding  system.19  Realizing  the  worth¬ 
lessness  of  the  issue,  the  legislative  body  provided 
that  the  old  money  should  cease  to  be  a  legal 
tender,  except  in  the  payment  of  taxes,  after  July 
1,  1781.  Before  the  assembly  adjourned,  it 
offered  a  ten  thousand  pound  bounty  for  every 
enlistment  and  authorized  an  issue  of  twenty 
million  pounds. 

When  the  assembly  met  the  following  October, 
the  money  was  scarcely  worth  the  paper  it  was 
printed  upon.  It  had  ceased  to  be  legal  tender; 
tobacco  was  the  medium  of  exchange.  A  bill  to 
stop  the  sale  of  sequestered  estates  was  rejected, 
and  all  future  funds  arising  from  these  sales  were 
appropriated  to  redeem  military  certificates.20  A 
plan  was  adopted  for  calling  in  and  funding 
all  paper  money  hitherto  issued  by  the  state.  On 
or  before  October  1,  1782,  all  holders  of  the  state 
paper  were  to  present  it  to  the  treasury  and  re¬ 
ceive  for  it  loan  office  certificates  at  the  rate  of  a 
thousand  to  one.  The  certificates  were  to  bear 
six  per  cent,  interest  and  were  to  be  transferable 
upon  assignment.21  All  certificates  not  funded  by 
October  1,  1782,  were  to  be  forfeited.  Subse¬ 
quent  legislation  extended  the  time  for  funding 

19  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  413. 

20  Ibid.,  p.  462.  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October 
1781,  pp.  24,  26,  39,  55. 

21  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  458. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


119 


to  June  1,  1783, 22  then  to  December  1,  1783  ;23 
and  later  to  1786.24 

The  funding  system  brought  a  revolution  in 
Virginia  finance.  The  salary  of  the  treasurer  was 
reduced  from  five  thousand  pounds,  as  fixed  in 

1779,  before  the  great  depreciation,  to  six  hun¬ 
dred  pounds;  salaries  of  other  officials  had  a  like 
reduction.25  Bounties  for  enlistments  were  cut, 
and  a  scale  of  depreciation  for  the  redemption  of 
old  military  certificates  was  arranged.26  Fore¬ 
seeing  the  perplexities  of  the  taxpayer,  taxes  were 
reduced  and  made  payable  in  flour,  hemp,  deer¬ 
skins,  or  specie.27  Time  for  collection  of  taxes 
was  postponed,  and  execution  of  judgments 
against  sheriffs  was  suspended  until  1785. 28 

The  repudiation  of  the  currency  and  the  rever¬ 
sion  to  hard  money  were  as  disastrous  to  the  deb¬ 
tor  as  the  inflation  of  the  currency  during  the  war 
had  been  to  the  creditor.  The  amount  of  cur¬ 
rency  in  circulation  contracted  enormously.  The 
balances  of  the  treasurer’s  report  from  December, 

1780,  to  December,  1781,  were  £60,823,216;  the 

22  Ibid.,  p.  133. 

23  Ibid.,  p.  192. 

21  Ibid.,  p.  397. 

25  Ibid.,  p.  493. 

28  Ibid.,  p.  462. 

21  Ibid.,  p.  501. 

23  Ibid.,  p.  462. 


120 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


balances  from  April  13,  1782,  to  November  30, 
1782,  were  £99,948.29  Between  1782  and  1787 
petitions  were  sent  to  Richmond  by  the  sheriffs  of 
forty-three  counties  pleading  their  inability  to 
collect  taxes  and  asking  to  be  relieved  from  their 
bonds;  all  plead  the  scarcity  of  money  and  the 
poverty  of  the  people.30  The  sheriff  of  Bucking¬ 
ham  County  said  his  arrears  in  taxes  were  “due 
to  no  fault  of  mine  but  to  the  poverty  of  the 
people.”31  The  sheriff  of  Powhatan  put  up  prop¬ 
erty  for  sale  that  belonged  to  delinquent  tax¬ 
payers,  but  no  one  would  bid  upon  it.32  The 
sheriff  of  Princess  Anne  “repeatedly  seized  the 
property  of  those  who  were  in  arrears  and  adver¬ 
tised  it  for  sale,  but  such  was  the  temper  of  the 
people  and  the  scarcity  of  money,  in  many  cases 
no  one  would  bid,  so  that  your  petitioner,  not¬ 
withstanding  his  utmost  endeavors,  was  incapable 
of  completing  his  collections  for  1784.”33  In 
Mecklenburg  the  sheriff  had  distrained  property 
for  the  taxes  of  1783  and  repeatedly  offered  it  at 
auction,  “but  for  want  of  money  there  have  been 

28  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1781,  p.  60. 
Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1782,  p.  77. 

30  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  IV.  10,  77,  82,  87,  111,  121, 
154,  174,  185,  223,  231,  377. 

32  Ibid.,  p.  87. 

32  Ibid.,  p.  185. 

33  Ibid.,  p.  121. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


121 


no  sales.”34  The  sheriff  of  Louisa  petitioned  re¬ 
lease  from  his  bond  for  taxes;  the  property  had 
been  seized,  but,  “on  account  of  the  scarcity  of 
specie  and  the  poverty  of  the  inhabitants,  it  went 
exceedingly  low several  persons  whose  property 
had  been  distrained  came  in  the  night  and  carried 
off  their  slaves,  horses,  and  chattels  which  the 
sheriff  held,  “not  that  they  had  been  opposed  to 
the  payment  of  taxes  but  they  could  not  suffer 
their  property  to  sell  for  a  trifle.”  In  his  petition 
the  sheriff  of  Louisa  sent  affidavits  to  show  the  in¬ 
ability  of  the  people  to  pay  their  taxes.  William 
Duval  testified  that  he  had  purchased  lands  in 
Louisa  valued  at  twenty  shillings  for  two  shillings 
an  acre.35  If  taxes  were  paid,  payments  were  in  the 
commodities  provided  by  law  and  not  in  specie.36 


34  Ibid.,  p.  154. 

35  Ibid.,  p.  82. 

36  On  July  1,  1782,  specie  in  hand  in  Albemarle,  Amelia,  Augusta, 
Amherst,  Bedford,  Caroline,  Charlotte,  Culpepper,  Campbell,  Fair¬ 
fax,  Fauquier,  Fayette,  Gloucester,  Greenville,  Halifax,  Hamp¬ 
shire,  Mecklenburg,  Orange,  Pittsylvania,  Rockbridge,  Spotsyl¬ 
vania,  and  Stafford  Counties  was  £472 ;  specific  articles  were 
9514  bushels  of  corn,  3127  bushels  of  wheat,  3909  bushels  of  oats, 
223  bushels  of  rye,  5  bushels  of  barley,  and  17,539  pounds  of 
bacon.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  203.  Among  the 
counties  reporting  delinquent  taxes  in  1785  were:  Albemarle, 
£2304;  Augusta,  £1253;  Bedford,  £2489;  Gloucester,  £3752; 
Henry,  £3245 ;  Lunenburg,  £1627;  Northumberland,  £1349;  Pow¬ 
hatan,  £1121;  Rockingham,  £2638;  Spotsylvania,  £1353.  The 
total  in  arrears  was  £40,000.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers, 
IV.  10.  In  May,  1787,  the  solicitor  returned  judgments  against 
forty-nine  sheriffs  for  delinquent  taxes  from  1782  to  1786,  for  a 
total  of  £79,952.  In  his  report  to  the  governor,  the  solicitor 
stated  that  in  many  cases  the  execution  of  the  judgment  against 


122 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


In  order  to  secure  the  much  coveted  specie,  sol¬ 
diers  sold  their  new  certificates  obtained  under  the 
funding  system  at  greatly  reduced  rates;  “they 
sold  them  for  a  mere  nothing;”  in  March,  1782, 
one  soldier  parted  with  a  certificate  for  “£48  for 
£4  paid  in  hand.”37  Specie  loans  on  military  cer¬ 
tificates  were  difficult  to  obtain  on  any  terms.38 

On  January  7,  1783,  John  Ambler,  the  treas¬ 
urer,  reported  to  the  governor  that  he  had  at¬ 
tempted  to  convert  some  of  the  specific  articles 
of  the  state  into  money,  but  “I  do  not  believe 
there  is  scarce  a  man  in  the  city  of  Richmond  who 
can  lay  down  the  sum  of  £75. ”39  Indeed,  the 
happy  days  of  paper  money  in  Virginia  had 
passed. 

the  sheriffs  had  been  stayed  several  times.  In  many  instances 
the  property  for  delinquent  taxes  had  been  seized  by  the  sheriff 
and  exposed  to  sale,  “and  the  executions  were  returned  to  the 
state  with  the  endorsement  ‘not  sold  for  want  of  bidders’,”.  Cal¬ 
endar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  IV.  595-96. 

31  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  87. 

38  Hunter,  Banks  and  Company  of  Petersburg,  John  Lyne  and 
Company  of  New  Castle,  Carter  Baxton  and  Company  of  West 
Point,  Samuel  Beal  of  Williamsburg,  Massachusetts,  Alexander 
Ross,  and  other  merchants  purchased  many  of  these  certificates 
and  later  exchanged  them  for  western  lands.  Calendar  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  Papers,  III.  80.  See  Patent  Books,  1783-1787.  Henry 
Banks  obtained  40,000  acres  for  treasury  warrants,  Patent  Book, 
N,  433-60.  See  also  Books  P  and  R,  passim.  The  greater  part 
of  the  lands  granted  in  Virginia  subsequent  to  the  Revolution 
were  for  military  certificates.  By  1788,  Virginia  had  granted 
2,500,000  acres  for  Continental  soldiers  and  3,500,000  for  the 
state  militia.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  IV.  477. 

38  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  417.  See  also  J. 
Ambler  to  J.  Madison,  April  6,  1782,  for  an  account  of  Virginia 
finances.  Letters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XIII. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


123 


The  conclusion  of  the  war  added  a  new  thorn 
in  the  flesh  of  the  Virginia  debtors.  British 
creditors  came  to  Virginia  demanding  payment  of 
the  debts  due  to  them,  not  payment  in  paper 
money,  but  in  sterling;  the  planters  had  no  ster¬ 
ling  and  could  not  obtain  it.  Jefferson  estimated 
that  the  debts  due  British  merchants  from  Vir¬ 
ginia  were  ten  times  as  great  as  the  money  in 
circulation.40  Prices  were  low;  surplus  tobacco 
flooded  the  market,  selling  from  eighteen  to 
twenty-three  shillings  per  hundred  weight  from 
1785  to  1787.  Negroes  purchased  at  a  hundred 
pounds  each  before  the  war  sold  for  from  twenty 
to  thirty  pounds.41 

Hector  McAllester,  formerly  a  merchant  at 
Portsmouth,42  and  William  Calderhead,  a  mer¬ 
chant  of  Norfolk,43  returned  to  Virginia  to  col¬ 
lect  amounts  due  them  when  Cornwallis  entered 
the  state.  Hardin  Burnley  and  his  partner  Brack- 
enridge  were  at  New  Castle  in  January,  1782,  up¬ 
on  a  similar  mission.44  James  Riddle,  a  former 
merchant,  was  driven  from  the  state  in  April, 
1782,  when  he  tried  to  collect  debts.  John  Mc¬ 
Lean,  Thomas  Milner,  and  John  Younghusband* 

“Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  202. 

41  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  IV.  229,  273. 

"Ibid.,  II.  250. 

"Ibid.,  III.  56. 

44  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


124 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


former  merchants,  petitioned  the  assembly  in  No¬ 
vember,  1782,  to  be  allowed  to  return  to  Virginia, 
become  citizens,  and  have  their  property  safe¬ 
guarded.45  Congress  entered  into  an  agreement 
with  the  British  at  New  York  to  allow  them  to 
export  tobacco,  and  when  the  ships  went  to  Vir¬ 
ginia  for  the  product  they  carried  with  them  many 
former  Virginia  merchants  who  had  sought  re¬ 
fuge  within  the  British  lines  during  the  war. 
Other  British  merchants  entered  under  flags  of 
truce  and  petitioned  the  governor  in  council  to 
be  allowed  to  remain  to  care  for  their  affairs; 
regardless  of  the  decision  of  the  council,  they  usu¬ 
ally  remained  until  driven  from  the  state  by  the 
civil  authorities  or  sometimes  by  mobs.46  A  law 
of  1776  forbade  alien  enemies  to  enter  the  state, 
but  the  attorney  general,  when  consulted  by  the 
governor,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  this  law  could 
not  be  used  to  bar  the  return  of  these  merchants, 
for  they  came  mostly  from  New  York  and  Phila¬ 
delphia,  and  the  term  “alien  enemy”  as  used  in  the 
law  meant  “those  enemies  suspected  of  treason”.47 

A  general  “stay  law”  had  been  passed  in  No¬ 
vember,  1781,  to  offset  the  funding  act  of  that 

45  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1782,  pp.  11, 
25,  26. 

48  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  251. 

47  Ibid. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


125 


session;48  the  May  assembly  of  1782,  in  response 
to  popular  clamor,  repealed  this  law  and  passed 
a  law  specifically  providing  that  no  debt  due  a 
British  merchant  should  be  recoverable  in  any 
court  in  the  state.  If  the  debt  was  in  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  a  citizen  of  Virginia,  the  plaintiff  had  to 
prove  that  it  was  obtained  by  a  bona  fide  purchase 
before  May  1,  1777,  the  day  set  for  the  departure 
of  British  merchants  under  the  Statute  Staple. 
This  law  was  to  be  in  effect  until  December  1, 
1783. 49  It  was  ineffective  in  excluding  creditors. 
Absentee  merchants  returned  to  Virginia  in  the 
summer  of  1782  and  applied  for  the  oath,  attesting 
their  allegiance  to  the  state.  Ignorant  or  slightly 
'‘disaffected”  justices  often  administered  the  oath, 
and  when  the  refugee  was  called  to  account  he 
presented  his  certificate  of  citizenship.50 

The  assembly  of  October,  1782,  attempted  to 
prevent  the  evasion  of  this  law  by  passing  a  law 
prohibiting  British  merchants  from  entering  the 
state;  any  magistrate  who  administered  the  oath 
to  a  British  subject  was  to  be  punished.51  Gover¬ 
nor  Harrison  issued  a  proclamation  in  December 

48  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  X.  471. 

^  Ibid.,  XI.  75. 

60  When  Thomas  Hyde  was  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  Suffolk 
he  called  for  the  oath  of  allegiance.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State 
Papers,  III.  296. 

51  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  136. 


126 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


forbidding  persons  who  had  professed  loyalty  to 
the  British  king  to  enter  Virginia.  Anyone  vio¬ 
lating  this  proclamation  was  to  be  arrested  and 
taken  to  Richmond.52  Commodore  Barron,  at 
Norfolk,  was  instructed  to  be  especially  watchful 
for  refugees  attempting  to  enter  the  state.53  In 
order  further  to  protect  the  Virginia  debtors 
against  those  who  threatened  them  with  suits  for 
British  debts,  it  was  provided  that  the  plaintiff 
seeking  to  collect  a  debt  must  show  in  open  court 
that  the  bond  (if  it  were  for  a  debt  due  a  British 
merchant)  was  acquired  by  purchase  before  April 
19,  1775.  British  subjects  were  excluded  from 
the  courts  altogether.  If  the  plaintiff  failed  to 
prove  that  he  had  acquired  any  British  bond  he 
attempted  to  collect  prior  to  the  date  specified,  he 
was  to  be  fined  treble  costs.  Lands,  chattels,  and 
commodities  were  to  be  accepted  for  domestic 
debts  at  prices  fixed  by  a  joint  commission  of  the 
-debtor  and  creditor.54  Resolutions  adopted  by  the 
assembly  upheld  the  sequestration  and  sale  of 
British  property  as  legally  justifiable  and  declared 
the  attempts  of  the  British  government  to  have  it 
restored  by  the  terms  of  peace  “are  wholly  in- 
admissable”;  the  peace  commissioners  of  the 

52  Council  Journals,  1782,  pp.  38-39.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State 
Papers,  III.  400. 

63  Council  Journals,  1782,  pp.  49-50. 

M  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  176. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


127 


United  States,  they  thought,  should  not  submit 
“that  the  laws  made  by  any  independent  state  of 
the  union  be  subjected  to  the  adjudication  of  any 
power  or  powers  on  earth.”55  Copies  of  these 
resolutions  were  sent  to  Congress,  and  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  delegates  were  instructed  to  use  their  influ¬ 
ence  to  have  them  sent  to  the  American  peace 
commissioners  then  negotiating  in  Paris.56 

On  February  15,  1783,  the  first  news  of  the 
preliminary  peace  reached  Norfolk;  by  the  middle 
of  March  the  terms  were  well  diffused  among  the 
people.57  The  fourth  article  of  the  Peace  of  Paris 
provided  that  creditors  on  either  side  should  meet 
with  no  lawful  impediment  to  the  recovery  in 
full  value  in  sterling  money  of  all  bona  fide  debts 
heretofore  contracted;  the  fifth  article  obligated 
Congress  to  recommend  to  the  states  restoration 
of  all  estates,  rights,  and  properties  belonging  to 

“  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1782,  p.  69. 

M  Jefferson  attempted  to  have  a  provision  inserted  in  the  in¬ 
structions  to  the  American  commissioners  instructing  them  to 
urge  “with  perseverance  the  necessity  of  a  reasonable  forbear¬ 
ance  in  the  levy  of  debts  due  within  these  states  to  British  sub¬ 
jects,”  but  this  clause  was  stricken  from  the  resolutions.  Jeffer¬ 
son,  Writings,  III.  355,  360.  Franklin  upheld  the  cause  of  the 
American  debtor  in  the  negotiations ;  Adams  said  “he  did  not 
want  to  cheat  anybody.”  Lord  Shelburne  was  personally  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  loyalists,  having  married  into  the  Penn  family. 
While  peace  negotiations  were  being  conducted  in  Paris,  the  Brit¬ 
ish  creditors  were  pressing  their  claims  at  the  British  Court., 
Edmund  Fitzmaurice,  Life  of  Lord  Shelburne,  II.  127,  137,  19J, 
202. 

"  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  436. 


128 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


real  British  subjects  which  had  been  seized  during, 
the  war;  the  sixth  article  provided  that  there 
should  be  no  future  confiscations.58  The  attitude 
of  the  Virginia  debtors  towards  such  terms  can 
be  easily  imagined.  Virginia  felt  that  her  inter¬ 
est  had  been  neglected;  her  debts  of  over  three 
millions  sterling,59  larger  than  the  debts  of  all  the 
other  states  combined,  had  been  sacrificed  for 
the  New  England  fisheries.60  In  1784,  when 
John  Tyler  learned  of  Jefferson’s  appointment  to 
follow  Franklin  as  minister  to  France,  he  wrote 
to  Jefferson  that  he  could  see  no  reason  why  he 
should  go  to  Europe,  “now  that  the  Treaty  had 
been  made  final.  Your  services  might  have  been 
great  indeed  when  the  preliminaries  were  entered 
into,  because  Virginia  would  have  had  a  friend 
who  knew  the  circumstances  of  the  people  and 
how  unjust  it  was  to  consent  to  the  payment  of 
the  debts”.61 

58  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  Conventions,  International  Acts, 
Protocols  and  Agreements  between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  other  Powers,  I.  586-90. 

59  Joseph  Jones  wrote  Jefferson  from  Richmond  December  29, 
1783,  that  he  believed  at  least  £3,000,000  sterling  and  probably 
more  were  due  to  British  subjects  from  Virginia.  Jones  did  not 
think  the  people  of  Virginia  were  able  to  pay  so  large  an  amount 
and  suggested  that  some  arrangement  should  be  made.  Jefferson 
Papers,  X. 

60  Jared  Sparks,  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American 

evolution,  X.  92,  93,  96. 

81  Tyler  to  Jefferson,  May  20,  1784,  in  Jefferson  Papers,  X. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


129 


The  treaty  brought  a  burst  of  indignation  from 
all  parts  of  Virginia.  Should,  or  should  not,  Vir¬ 
ginia,  an  independent  state,  accept  and  execute  a 
treaty  whose  terms  were  so  unfavorable  for  her? 
Resolutions,  petitions,  speeches,  and  letters  at¬ 
tempted  to  answer  this  question.  A  set  of  resolu¬ 
tions,  adopted  in  Halifax  County,  appeared  in 
the  Virginia  Gazette  on  June  7,  1783,  opposing 
the  treaty  in  general  and  especially  the  article  pro¬ 
viding  for  the  “payment  of  debts  contracted  be¬ 
fore  the  Revolution”  as  unprecedented  and  ruin¬ 
ous  “to  the  suffering  citizens  of  this  state,  who, 
we  think  are  unable  to  comply  with  the  demands, 
without  producing  great  injury  to  the  state  itself. 
The  debts  of  the  British  merchants  are  equally 
forfeited  with  their  rights  of  property  among  us, 
and  we  can  never  consent  that  the  good  citizens 
of  this  state  shall  lay  at  the  mercy  of  British 
creditors  on  account  of  such  debts ;  neither  do  we 
think  there  is  any  authority  in  the  laws  to  compel 
the  payment  of  such  debts  to  British  subjects.” 
The  signers  of  the  resolutions  pledged  themselves 
forever  to  oppose  the  treaty  and  called  upon  the 
Virginia  assembly,  then  in  session,  to  protect  their 
interests.62  On  May  24  a  vigorous  article  in  the 
same  paper  made  an  appeal  that  the  old  distinc¬ 
tion  between  Whig  and  Tory  should  not  be  for- 


ei  Virginia  Gazette,  June  7,  1783. 


130  LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 

gotten  and  that  the  people  as  a  body  oppose  the 
extension  of  any  civil  privileges  to  the  loyalists.63 
George  Mason  wrote  to  Patrick  Henry  that  the 
question  was  frequently  heard  in  conversation: 
“If  we  are  now  to  pay  the  debts  due  to  the  British 
merchants  what  have  we  been  fighting  for  all  this  i 
while?”64  Great  alarm  was  expressed  lest  the  state  i 
should  assume  the  payment  of  the  debts  that  had 
been  discharged  by  payments  into  the  loan  office 
under  the  law  of  May,  1777,  and  the  burden  of  the 
depreciated  currency  be  thus  placed  on  the  tax 
payer  if  the  treaty  were  executed.  The  people  of 
Frederick65  and  Essex66  Counties  petitioned  the 
assembly  in  May,  1783,  that  under  no  circum¬ 
stances  should  the  state  assume  responsibility  for 
this  class  of  debts.  Inhabitants  of  Halifax  ex¬ 
pressed  fear  that  these  debts  would  be  shifted  to 
the  taxpayers.  A  second  petition  from  Halifax 
“prayed  that  the  legislature  may  reject  such  part 
of  the  treaty  as  provides  for  the  payment  of 
debts.”67 

The  Treaty  of  Paris  obligated  the  state  to  repeal 
all  laws  which  prevented  the  return  of  loyalists 
who  had  not  borne  arms  against  America;  those 

63  Virginia  Gazette,  May  24,  1783. 

M  Pr^n^y,  Life  of  Patrick  Henry.  IL  187. 

,5  Virginia  Gazette,  December  27,  1783. 

M  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  865. 

"  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1783,  pp.  37,  65. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


131 


who  had  borne  arms  against  the  state  should  be 
allowed  to  return  and  remain  undisturbed  for  a 
year  to  settle  their  affairs.  This  provision  like¬ 
wise  caused  bitter  protest  in  Virginia.  A  peti¬ 
tion  from  Essex  County  was  presented  to  the 
House  of  Delegates  on  June  4  opposing  the  re¬ 
turn  of  any  British  subjects;68  a  petition  signed 
by  three  hundred  inhabitants  of  Hanover  was 
presented  on  June  7  objecting  to  the  repeal  of 
any  laws  which  prohibited  the  return  of  the  loy¬ 
alists  ;69  a  similar  petition  from  Henrico  was  pre¬ 
sented  June  ll.70 

However,  there  were  some  citizens  who  had 
bought  up  the  bonds  held  against  the  Virginia 
debtors  when  the  merchants  left  the  state  and, 
“by  the  transfer  of  these  British  debts,  many 
citizens  were  supporting  British  interests  to  the 
injury  of  other  citizens.”71  Others  realized  the 
importance  of  the  loyalists  and  especially  the 
loyal  merchants  to  the  Shelburne  ministry  and 
feared  a  renewal  of  the  war  if  the  treaty  was  not 
executed  in  Virginia.72  In  June,  1783,  it  was 
rumored  in  the  state  that  loyalists  in  London 

•Ibid.,  p.  37. 

®  Ibid,.,  p.  41;  Virginia  Gazette,  June  14,  1783. 

70  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  May  1783,  p.  48. 

71  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  179. 

”  George  Mason  was  of  this  opinion.  See  Rowland,  Life,  Cor¬ 
respondence  and  Speeches  of  George  Mason,  II.  45. 


132 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


were  insisting  that  New  York  should  not  be  evac¬ 
uated  until  Congress  and  the  states  acted  upon 
the  treaty  stipulations  respecting  the  restoration 
of  property.73  Others,  among  them  John  Tyler, 
thought  that  the  treaty  was  a  bad  one,  but  Vir¬ 
ginia  should  not  “reflect  too  much  on  the  business 
but  provide  the  most  easy  means  of  getting  over 
them  [the  debts]  with  honor.”74  In  Essex  County, 
where  loyalism  had  manifested  itself  throughout 
the  war,  the  contest  was  most  bitter.  Resolu¬ 
tions  were  adopted  in  that  county  in  July  sup¬ 
porting  the  treaty  as  honorably  negotiated  and 
calling  upon  Virginia  faithfully  to  execute  it.75 
An  anonymous  writer  from  Essex  in  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  Gazette  contended  that  a  failure  to  pay  the 
debts  would  only  justify  the  assertion  so  common¬ 
ly  made  in  England — that  the  colonies  revolted 
to  keep  from  paying  their  just  debts.76  Citizens 
from  Halifax  instructed  their  delegates  to  “oppose 
to  the  utmost  of  their  power  the  smallest  infrac¬ 
tion  of  the  late  treaty  of  peace,”  and  if  any  ob¬ 
jected  to  the  cancellation  of  payments  made  into 
the  loan  office  to  discharge  debts,  they  were  to 
“call  for  the  ayes  and  nays,  so  the  corn  could  be 

73  Virginia  Gazette,  June  28,  1783.  )•' 

74  Tyler  to  Jefferson,  May  20,  1784,  in  Jefferson  Papers,  X. 

76  Virginia  Gazette,  July  5,  1783.  ‘ 

76 /frit/.,  October  25,  1783. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


133 


separated  from  the  tares.”77  At  a  meeting  in 
Winchester,  resolutions  were  adopted  declaring 
that  those  who  opposed  British  subjects  entering 
the  state  were  only  attempting  to  avoid  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  their  debts ;  they  thought  debts  ought  to 
be  paid  and  opposed  a  proclamation  of  the  gover¬ 
nor  issued  on  July  2  prohibiting  British  subjects 
from  migrating  into  Virginia.78  Other  citizens 
of  Berkeley  County  thought  the  doors  should  be 
thrown  open  and  that  the  British  should  be  in¬ 
vited  to  come  into  the  state ;  the  great  need  of  the 
country  was  man-power,  and  this  need  should 
not  be  sacrificed  to  the  interest  of  the  debtors.!0 

Closely  akin  to  the  subject  of  British  debts 
was  that  of  citizenship.  The  courts,  as  has  been 
noted,  were  closed  to  British  subjects,  but  there 
were  always  those  who  were  ready  to  swear  their 
allegiance  to  the  state,  if  by  doing  so  they  could 
collect  their  accounts.  Aliens  could  not  hold  title 
to  real  estate  unless  by  special  agreement;  the 
British  had  attempted  to  include  such  an  agree¬ 
ment  in  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  but  with  no  success.80 
Merchants,  unable  to  collect  in  sterling  debts  due 
them,  must  ultimately  rely  upon  the  real  estate  of 
the  planters.  Many  merchants  were  anxious  to 

"Ibid,.,  June  7,  1783. 

78  Ibid.,  December  27,  1783. 

79  Ibid. 

80  Such  a  provision  was  made  in  Jay’s  Treaty,  Article  IX. 


134 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


return  and  resume  their  trade.  Therefore,  the 
question  of  citizenship  was  of  great  importance 
to  the  Virginians  as  well  as  to  British  subjects. 
This,  with  the  question  of  sequestered  property 
and  debts,  was  the  most  widely  discussed  topic  in 
the  state  from  May  to  December,  1783. 

Sixty-nine  “of  the  most  respectable  inhabitants 
of  Northumberland”  expressed  sympathy  with 
those  who  had  lost  property  under  the  acts  of 
sequestration,  but  thought  the  “treaty  should  be 
interpreted  with  the  utmost  rigor,”  as  it  affected 
those  mercantile  classes  who  had  left  the  state 
at  the  beginning  of  the  war.  They  feared  that 
if  the  British  were  not  carefully  watched  they 
would  undo  all  that  had  been  accomplished  by  the 
Revolution.81  At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of 
officers  of  the  Virginia  line  in  Fredericksburg  on 
July  13,  1783,  Colonel  William  Heth,  of  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  Continental  line,  in  a  public  speech,  vigor¬ 
ously  attacked  the  loyalists  and  called  upon  all 
true  patriots  to  unite  in  preventing  their  return. 
The  following  day  the  same  assembly  unanimous¬ 
ly  adopted  resolutions  following  the  sentiment  ex¬ 
pressed  by  Colonel  Heth.82  “A  number  of  respec- 
able  inhabitants  of  Caroline  County”  objected  to 
the  admission  of  those  who  had  left  the  state  in 

81  South  Carolina  Gazette,  September  20,  1783. 

"Ibid.,  July  22,  1783. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


135 


the  hour  of  distress.  Citizenship  was  a  privilege 
and  should  be  granted  only  to  the  most  deserving. 
They  were  likewise  opposed  to  the  payment  of 
debts.83  A  writer  in  the  Gazette  for  November 
8  likened  all  the  British  merchants  who  wished  to 
return  and  be  admitted  to  citizenship  to  Judas — 
both  were  after  the  silver.84  Meriwether  Smith, 
at  one  time  a  member  of  Congress  from  Virginia, 
wrote  a  pamphlet  against  the  return  of  the  loyal¬ 
ists  and  scattered  it  over  the  state.  In  the  spring 
of  1784  he  prepared  a  second  pamphlet  against 
the  returning  British.85  Several  petitions  were 
laid  before  the  assembly  in  May,  1783,  and  an  at¬ 
tempt  was  made  to  repeal  the  laws  that  were  not 
in  conformity  with  the  treaty,  but,  as  the  assembly 
had  received  no  official  notification  of  the  treaty, 
action  was  deferred  until  the  next  assembly. 

In  the  meantime,  the  entire  question  of  the  treaty 
was  laid  before  the  governor  and  council.  British 

83  Ibid.,  October  IS,  1783. 

84  Virginia  Gazette,  November  8,  1783 — signed  “A  Sentinel 
from  Caroline  County.” 

85  B.  Randolph  to  J.  Monroe,  January  2,  1784,  in  Letters  to 
Monroe.  A  writer  from  Tappahannock,  Essex  County,  attacked 
Meriwether  Smith’s  pamphlet — “Shall  we  allow  a  few  scurvy 
sneaking  debtors  to  come  forward  and  verify  the  charge  of  our 
enemies” — that  we  went  to  war  to  escape  our  debts,  see  Virginia 
Gazette,  November  29,  1783.  On  January  3,  1784,  Smith  made  a 
reply.  Ibid.  He  alleged  he  was  not  personally  concerned. 
Smith,  in  his  pamphlet  of  May,  1784,  paralleled  the  confiscation 
of  British  debts  with  the  conduct  of  the  Dutch  during  the  war 
with  Spain.  Edmund  Randolph  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  April  24, 
1784,  in  Jefferson  Papers,  X. 


136 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


refugees  had  attempted  to  return,  in  compliance 
with  the  fourth  and  fifth  articles  of  the  treaty, 
and  local  authorities  were  uncertain  whether  the 
law  of  October,  1782,  should  be  enforced  against 
them.  Captain  John  Wormley,  who  had  been  in 
British  service  during  the  war,  was  granted  per¬ 
mission  to  remain  in  Virginia  until  further  no¬ 
tice.86  Three  or  four  Scottish  merchants  made 
their  appearance  in  Petersburg;  the  inhabitants 
of  the  town  were  so  provoked  that  a  meeting  was 
held  on  June  20,  and  they  were  asked  to  leave.87 
On  July  2  the  governor  laid  before  the  council 
letters  “received  from  Andrew  Johnston  and  sev¬ 
eral  other  British  subjects  announcing  their  ar¬ 
rival  in  the  state”  for  the  purpose  of  “trade  and 
collection  of  debts.”88  He  asked  the  advice  of  the 
council.  The  council  was  at  a  loss  as  to  the  course 
that  should  be  taken,  but  suggested  that  the  British 
in  the  state  be  allowed  twenty-one  days  to  depart ; 
the  governor,  the  council  advised,  should  issue  a 
proclamation  prohibiting  anyone  who  had 
departed  under  the  Statute  Staple  from  returning, 
and  the  executive  should  seek  the  advice  of  the 

“For  the  case  of  Wormley,  see  Calendar  of  Virginia  State 
Papers,  III.  483;  Council  Journals,  1782-83,  pp.  8,  192,  202; 
Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  314. 

87  Joseph  Jones  to  James  Madison,  June  21,  1783,  in  P.  L.  Ford, 
Letters  of  Joseph  Jones,  p.  123. 

88  Council  Journals,  1783,  pp.  251,  256-7. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


137 


assembly.89  The  proclamation  was  issued,90  but 
several  returning  merchants  obtained  permission 
from  the  governor  and  council  to  remain  in  the 
state.  Joseph  Williamson,  who  had  been  a  mer¬ 
chant  in  Essex  County,  but  joined  the  British  and 
with  several  small  boats  made  an  attempt  to  burn 
Tappahannock  during  the  war,  obtained  permis¬ 
sion  from  the  governor  to  carry  a  cargo  of  merch¬ 
andise  up  the  Rappahannock.  He  was  warned  by 
the  citizens  to  leave,  but  took  no  heed.  On  October 
10,  1782,  despite  the  letter  of  protection  from 
governor  and  council  which  Williamson  had  in  his 
pocket,  he  was  given  a  generous  bath  of  tar  and 
feathers.  The  governor  and  council  ordered  that 
indictments  be  brought  against  the  offenders,  but 
the  citizens  of  Essex  expressed  their  approval  of 
the  tar  and  feathers  by  electing  to  the  next  ses¬ 
sion  of  the  assembly  William  Gatewood,  whose 
name  headed  the  list  of  the  indicted.91  Spencer 
Roane,  the  second  member  of  the  assembly  from 
Essex,  secured  the  passage  of  an  act  in  the  May 
session,  1784,  squelching  the  indictment,  as  the 
mobbing  had  “taken  place  previous  to  the  ratifi- 

89  Ibid. 

90  Virginia  Gazette,  July  5,  1783. 

91  Council  Journals,  1782,  p.  290.  See  Edmund  Randolph  to 
Thomas  Jefferson,  April  24,  1784,  in  Jefferson  Papers,  X. 


138  LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 

cation  of  the  Definitive  Treaty  by  Great  Bri¬ 
tain.”92 

Governor  Harrison  laid  the  question  of  the  re¬ 
turn  of  the  British  before  the  assembly,  when  it 
met,  November  1,  1783.  “To  allow  all  the  British 
to  return  might  be  attended  with  the  greatest  in¬ 
convenience  to  the  state  and  the  American  cause.” 
Most  of  the  British,  he  said,  who  had  attempted  to 
return,  had  borne  arms  against  the  state  or  had 
departed  under  the  Statute  Staple.  If  these  mer¬ 
chants  were  allowed  to  return,  they  might  have 
great  influence  “among  the  planters  who  are  un¬ 
der  heavy  obligations  to  them — I  am  not  unin¬ 
formed  that  the  proclamation  has  raised  some 
clamors  in  the  country  but  I  am  happy  to  find  that 
they  generally  originated  with  those  who  have 
evermore  inclined  to  bow  to  the  yoke  of  slavery 
than  to  assist  in  the  establishment  of  American 
Independence.”93  The  letter  was  delivered  to  the 
house  on  November  4,  and  the  next  day  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  fourteen,  with  John  Taylor  of  Caroline 
as  chairman,  was  ordered  to  prepare  and  bring  in 
a  bill  “for  repealing  a  former  act,  and  declaring 
who  shall  be  deemed  citizens  of  this  common- 

82  Herring,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  373. 

83  Governor’s  Letter  Book,  October  20,  1783.  Also  Executive 
Communications,  1782-1786. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


139 


wealth.”94  The  report  of  the  committee  was  dis¬ 
cussed  on  November  10,  and  again,  in  the  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  whole,  on  November  29. 95  John 
Tyler  was  opposed  to  permitting  the  British  to 
return  without  making  discrimination  against 
those  who  had  been  most  active  in  their  loyal- 
ism.  Patrick  Henry  thought  that  there  was 
no  danger  from  the  British  who  would  return; 
they  had  mistaken  their  interest.  But,  Henry 
argued,  the  war  was  over;  the  great  need  of 
the  country  was  men  to  develop  the  untold 
wealth.  “Shall  we,  who  have  laid  the  proud 
British  lion  at  our  feet,  now  be  afraid  of  his 

M  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1783,  p.  9.  Pat¬ 
rick  Henry  had  introduced  a  bill  in  the  May  session  of  the  as¬ 
sembly  to  repeal  all  laws  against  the  migration  of  British  subjects 
into  Virginia.  He  was  supported  by  Richard  Henry  Lee.  Joseph 
Jones  and  John  Tyler  opposed  Henry’s  bill  and  contended  there 
should  be  some  discrimination  made  among  the  British.  The 
bill  was  debated  in  the  house  on  May  21  and  postponed,  by  a 
vote  of  fifty-six  to  twenty-seven,  until  the  next  session.  Joseph 
Jones  to  James  Madison,  June  8,  1783,  in  Ford,  Letters  of  Joseph 
Jones,  p.  116.  See  also  Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  May 
1783,  p.  76.  George  Mason,  who  thought  that  “the  accounts  of 
British  creditors  could  be  safely  trusted  to  Virginia  juries,”  pro¬ 
posed  a  bill  to  allow  all  British  subjects  to  obtain  judgments, 
but  the  judgments  were  to  be  executed  in  five  annual  install¬ 
ments.  Violent  opposition  to  Mason’s  bill  was  led  by  Richard 
Henry  Lee.  The  bill  was  discussed  in  the  committee  of  the 
whole  on  June  20  and  postponed  until  the  next  session  by  a  vote 
of  sixty-six  to  twenty-three.  See  Rowland,  Life,  Correspond¬ 
ence  and  Speeches  of  George  Mason,  II.  45;  Ford,  Letters  of 
Joseph  Jones,  pp.  110,  120;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
May  1783,  p.  70.  Patrick  Henry  was  a  supporter  of  immigration 
but  opposed  to  the  payment  of  the  debts. 

85  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1783,  pp.  13,  39. 


140 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


whelps!”96  A  compromise  was  reached  on  De-  1 
cember  1,  providing  that  former  acts  prohibiting  i 
British  subjects  from  entering  the  state  and  ac-  t 
quiring  citizenship  should  be  repealed.  A  new  ; 
citizenship  law  prohibited  all  persons  resident  in 
any  of  the  states  on  April  19,  1775,  and  later  join¬ 
ing  the  enemy,  and  all  persons  who  acted  with,  or 
under  the  authority  of,  the  Board  of  Refugees 
Commission  in  New  York,  from  entering  Vir¬ 
ginia.  All  others  who  were  resident  in  the  state 
on  April  19,  1775,  and  prohibited  by  any  law  from 
returning  to  the  state,  were  given  permission  to 
immigrate,  but  they  were  denied  all  political 
rights.97 

The  liberal  provisions  of  this  law  were  poorly 
executed  by  the  Virginians.  The  merchants  who 
had  gone  to  New  York  and  Philadelphia  during 
the  war  had  been  compelled  to  do  guard  duty ;  in 
some  counties  such  persons  were  placed  in  the 
class  of  those  who  had  joined  the  enemy,  and  they 
were  refused  admission.98  The  citizens  of  Port 
Royal,  Caroline  County,  held  a  meeting  in  May, 
1784,  and  ordered  several  merchants  who  had  re¬ 
turned  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  October, 

Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1783,  p.  41 ;  also 
Henry,  Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  II.  193-95. 

87  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  323,  324.  Virginia  Gazette, 
December  27,  1783. 

88  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  III.  551. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


141 


1783,  to  depart  at  once."  In  Portsmouth,  at  a 
meeting  of  the  inhabitants  on  July  7,  1784,  resolu¬ 
tions  were  adopted  saying,  “that  it  was  with  great 
astonishment  that  we  see  a  number,  and  have 
reason  to  believe  that  a  great  many  more  will  at¬ 
tempt  settlement  in  this  town.”  The  inhabitants 
pledged  themselves  to  invite  the  loyalists  to  de¬ 
part,  and  if  gentle  “methods  will  not  suffice  we 
will  take  measures  adopted  against  the  British 
army  to  drive  them  out.”  Copies  of  these  resolu¬ 
tions  were  sent  to  John  Kerr  and  other  returning 
merchants.100  Thirty  persons,  most  of  them  mer¬ 
chants,  found  difficulties  when  they  attempted  to 
return  to  Petersburg  in  September,  1784,  and  pe¬ 
titioned  the  governor  for  protection.101  Regard¬ 
less  of  the  treaty  of  peace  and  the  Virginia  law, 
the  temper  of  the  people  was  so  strong  against 
loyalists,  many  of  whom  came  to  collect  debts 
that  could  not  be  paid,  that  they  were  insulted  and 
driven  from  the  state.  Governor  Harrison  issued 
a  proclamation  on  July  26,  1784,  calling  upon  all 
civil  authorities  to  uphold  the  law  and  give  pro¬ 
tection  to  the  returning  merchants.102 

The  fourth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  pro¬ 
vided  that  even  those  who  had  borne  arms  against 

"  Ibid.,  p.  598. 

100  Ibid.,  P.  597. 

101  Ibid.,  p.  613. 

,oa  Virginia  Gazette,  July  31,  1784. 


142 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


the  United  States  should  be  permitted  to  remain 
unmolested  in  the  state  for  twelve  months  to  se¬ 
cure  their  property.  There  was  no  such  provision 
in  the  law  of  Virginia ;  but,  as  loyalists  were  pro¬ 
hibited  from  bringing  suits  in  the  courts,  there 
seems  to  have  been  little  objection  to  complying 
with  the  letter  of  the  law.  After  the  designated 
time  had  elapsed,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Peters¬ 
burg  at  which  eighty-four  citizens  from  the  sur¬ 
rounding  counties  were  present.  Joseph  Jones 
and  William  Heth  made  a  motion  that,  as  it  ap¬ 
peared  that  there  were  “sundry  persons”  residing 
in  Petersburg  who  had  overstayed  the  twelve 
months  allowed,  the  governor  and  assembly  should 
take  measures  to  enforce  the  law  of  October,  1783, 
against  them.  John  Banister  moved  that  the 
wording  be  changed  to  read  “if  there  were”  peo¬ 
ple  in  the  town  contrary  to  the  law,  they  should 
be  ordered  to  depart ;  his  amendment  was  adopted 
after  some  debate  by  a  vote  of  forty-four  to  forty. 
The  meeting  was  continued  the  next  day  (Sep¬ 
tember  16),  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
draw  up  a  petition  to  the  governor  and  council 
requesting  that  the  law  be  enforced  against  those 
persons  who  were  illegally  residing  in  the  town.103 
Several  letters  were  sent  to  Governor  Patrick 
Henry  asking  that  those  who  had  over-stayed 

103  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  IV.  167,  171-72. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


143 


their  time  be  arrested.104  After  consulting  with 
the  attorney-general,105  the  Governor  issued  a 
proclamation  on  October  14,  1786,  ordering  all 
British  subjects  who  did  not  come  within  the 
provisions  of  the  law  of  October,  1783,  to  depart 
at  once  upon  pain  of  being  arrested  by  the  civil 
authorities.  The  assembly  that  met  in  October, 
1786,  provided  that  if  anyone  not  authorized  by 
former  laws  entered  the  state,  he  was  to  be  ar¬ 
rested  and  tried ;  upon  conviction,  the  offender  was 
to  be  fined  a  hundred  pounds  and  given  a  jail 
sentence  of  six  months;  for  the  second  offence, 
the  penalty  was  five  years’  imprisonment  and  for¬ 
feiture  of  all  property.  No  foreign  merchant 
could  acquire  any  rights  of  citizenship  until  he 
had  married  in  Virginia  or  acquired  property  of 
five  hundred  pounds.  All  persons  who  were  pro¬ 
hibited  from  migrating  into  the  state  were  for¬ 
bidden  to  bring  suit  in  any  court  against  a  citizen 
of  Virginia  or  anyone  entitled  to  become  a  citi¬ 
zen  ;  if  it  should  be  shown  in  court  that  the  plain¬ 
tiff  was  prohibited  from  migrating  into  the  state, 
he  was  to  be  fined  treble  costs,  and  the  jury  was  to 
render  a  verdict  for  the  defendant.106 

A  second  phase  of  the  debt  problem  was  that 
relating  to  the  opening  of  the  courts  to  those 

104  Ibid.,  pp.  167,  175. 

105  Ibid.,  p.  179. 

106  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XII.  261. 


144  LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 

merchants  who  did  not  come  within  the  class  pro¬ 
hibited  from  entering  the  state.  The  fourth  arti¬ 
cle  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  provided  that  there 
should  be  no  impediments  to  the  recovery  of  debts. 
In  May,  1783,  as  has  been  noted,  George  Mason 
proposed  a  bill  that  would  permit  British  credi¬ 
tors  to  bring  suits  in  Virginia  courts,  but  this 
bill  was  postponed  by  a  large  vote  until  the  next 
assembly.107  All  laws  prohibiting  the  recovery  of 
British  debts  were  to  expire  on  December  1,  1783. 
When  the  legislature  met  in  November  of  that 
year,  it  continued  the  “stay  law”  “four  months 
and  from  then  until  the  next  Assembly”,108  be¬ 
cause  “the  Definitive  Treaty  had  not  received  its 
finishing  shape.”109 

Congress  ratified  the  treaty  of  peace  on  Janu¬ 
ary  14,  and,  in  compliance  with  the  obligation  of 
the  fifth  article,  resolutions  were  sent  to  each 
state  recommending  that  they  repeal  the  laws 
against  the  loyalists  and  the  recovery  of  debts.110 
When  the  Virginia  assembly  met  in  May,  1784. 
James  Madison  proposed  that  all  laws  that  stood 
in  the  way  of  the  treaty  should  be  repealed.  Pat¬ 
rick  Henry  led  the  opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the 

107  See  above,  note  94. 

108  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  349. 

108  Joseph  Jones  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  December  29,  1783,  Jeffer¬ 
son  Papers,  X. 

110  Sparks,  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American  Revo¬ 
lution,  X.  228. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


145 


“stay  law”  and  was  successful  in  defeating  a 
vote  on  Madison’s  bill  by  a  vote  of  fifty-six  to 
thirty-six.111  Henry  urged  that  Great  Britain 
had  not  fulfilled  that  part  of  the  treaty  concern¬ 
ing  the  payment  for  the  Negroes112  carried  away 
and  the  evacuation  of  the  western  posts.  A  com¬ 
mittee  appointed  to  draw  up  resolutions  to  Con- 
giess  prepared  a  report  asserting  that  although 
the  treaty-making  power  was  with  Congress,  they 
thought  the  “Assembly  should  withhold  their  co¬ 
operation  in  the  complete  fulfillment  until  British 
infractions  of  the  treaty  are  reported  upon;”  as 
soon  as  the  infractions  on  the  part  of  Great  Bri¬ 
tain  be  rectified  “and  Congress  judges  it  indis¬ 
pensably  necessary,  such  acts  of  legislation  passed 
during  the  war  preventing  the  recovery  of  British 
debts  should  be  repealed  at  a  time  and  in  a  manner 
suitable  with  exhausted  conditions  of  this  com¬ 
monwealth.”  An  attempt  to  add  an  amendment 
that  Virginia  would  not  pay  the  debts  until  Great 
Britain  paid  for  property  destroyed  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  fifty-five  to  thirty-three.113  The  resolu¬ 
tions  were  passed  and  sent  to  Congress,  but  the 

U1  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1784,  p.  41 ;  also 
Gaillard  Hunt,  Writings  of  James  Madison,  II.  54.  Henry,  Life 
of  Patrick  Henry,  II.  231. 

m  Jefferson  estimated  that  the  British  carried  thirty  thousand 
Negroes  from  Virginia. 

113  Virginia  Gazette,  June  29,  1784;  Journal  of  the  House  of 
Delegates,  May  1784,  pp.  54,  72,  74. 


146 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


minority  of  the  senate  drew  up  a  second  report 
dissenting  from  the  majority  resolutions.114  Thus 
the  assembly  did  nothing  to  comply  with  the 
recommendations  of  Congress  and  the  Treaty  of 
Paris  except  pass  a  law  preventing  any  future 
confiscation  of  property.115 

The  same  bill  that  was  defeated  in  May,  1784, 
was  introduced  in  the  October  session,  1784.  Pa¬ 
trick  Henry,  who  had  led  the  opposition  in  May, 
had  been  elected  governor  and  “was  out  of  the 
way.”  While  the  bill  was  under  discussion,  the 
proceedings  of  a  meeting  of  fifty-four  Glasgow 
merchants  interested  in  North  American  trade 
prior  to  1776,  held  in  Glasgow  on  September  24, 
were  presented  to  the  assembly  through  their 
American  agents  in  Petersburg.116  These  mer¬ 
chants  declared  their  willingness  to  accept  pay¬ 
ment  for  debts  due  them  from  Virginia  in  annual 
installments,  if  provision  should  be  made  for  the 
execution  of  judgments  in  the  courts.117  Counter 
petitions  were  presented  from  thirty-nine  local 
merchants  of  Petersburg  and  thirty-eight  local 
merchants  of  Richmond,  who  thought  no  favor 
should  be  shown  to  their  British  creditors.118  A 

114  Virginia  Gazette,  July  10,  1784. 

115  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI.  446. 

us  Executive  Communications,  October  1784-July  1785. 

117  Ibid. 

118  Madison,  Writings,  II.  114-17. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


147 


bill  providing  for  the  payment  of  debts  in  seven 
annual  installments,  without  interest  during  the 
war,  passed  the  house.  The  senate  failed  to 
agree  to  the  bill  and  attempted  to  add  a  rider  that 
would  repeal  all  laws  against  the  collection  of  do¬ 
mestic  debts;  the  house  would  not  agree  to  the 
rider,  and  the  senate,  probably  to  kill  the  bill,  at¬ 
tempted  to  place  all  British  subjects  on  the  same 
legal  footing.  The  house  and  senate,  in  a  joint 
session,  agreed  upon  a  bill  following  closely  that 
proposed  by  the  house.  The  next  day  had  been 
set  by  the  assembly  for  adjournment.  That  night 
several  of  the  members  of  the  house  “crossed  the 
river  to  Manchester,  with  the  intention,  it  is  pre¬ 
sumed  of  returning  the  next  morning.  The 
severity  of  the  weather  rendered  their  passage 
back  the  next  morning  impossible.”  There  was 
no  quorum  in  the  house  without  them,  and  it 
was  decided  to  postpone  adjournment  for  another 
day.  The  next  day  a  canoe  was  sent  over  for  the 
party,  “but  they  did  not  choose  to  venture  them¬ 
selves.”  The  assembly  agreed  to  wait  one  more 
day;  the  absent  members  in  Manchester  did  not 
return ;  warm  resolutions  of  censure  were  passed, 
and  the  assembly  adjourned.  The  bill  as  agreed 
upon  in  the  joint  session  did  not  go  through  the 
final  form  and  never  became  a  law.  Patrick 
Henry  wrote  that  the  absent  members  were  known 


148 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


to  favor  the  bill;  Madison  was  inclined  to  think 
otherwise  and  said  that  their  absence  was  only  to 
defeat  the  measure.119 

In  the  meantime,  the  failure  of  Virginia  to  re¬ 
peal  her  laws  against  the  collection  of  British 
debts  had  given  rise  to  numerous  complaints  by 
British  merchants,  both  in  Virginia  and  in  Eng¬ 
land.120  J.  H.  Norton  and  Company,  British  mer¬ 
chants,  wrote  to  James  Madison  and  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Virginia  assembly  on  October  1,  1785, 
protesting  that  they  were  compelled  to  pay  the 
debts  owed  to  Virginians,  but  were  unable,  on 
account  of  existing  laws  in  that  state,  to  make  col¬ 
lections  of  debts  due  to  them.  They  asked  Madi¬ 
son  to  give  his  aid  in  repealing  the  Virginia 
laws.121  William  Grayson  wrote  to  Madison, 
November  22,  1785,  that  John  Adams  had  con¬ 
ferred  with  Pitt,  and  the  latter  had  complained  of 
the  laws  in  Virginia.122  A  committee  of  Glasgow 
merchants  waited  on  Adams  and  told  him  that 
they  proposed  to  lay  the  matter  before  Parlia¬ 
ment,  but  Adams  prevailed  upon  them  not  to  do 
so,  as  it  might  prevent  a  more  peaceable  settle- 

U9  Henry,  Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  III.  266 ;  Madison,  W ritings, 
II.  114. 

120  Bemis,  Jay’s  Treaty,  p.  103. 

121  J.  H.  Norton  to  James  Madison,  October  1,  1875,  in  Letters 
to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XIV. 

122  William  Grayson  to  James  Madison,  November  22,  1785,  in 
Letters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XIV. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


149 


ment.  Lord  Carmarthen  protested  that  the  Brit¬ 
ish  merchants  were  losing  much  in  Virginia  by 
the  migration  of  the  Virginians  to  Kentucky.123 
The  latter  part  of  the  year,  Grayson  wrote  to 
Madison  that  the  British  ministry  seemed  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  execution  of  the  Treaty  of 
Paris  in  every  state  except  Virginia.  This  in¬ 
formation  was  laid  before  the  House  of  Delegates 
when  it  assembled  in  October,  1785, 124  and  the 
bill  of  the  previous  session  was  again  revived. 
Several  amendments  added  as  riders  killed  the 
force  of  the  bill ;  “insinuations  were  made  against 
Congress,  the  Eastern  States  and  the  negotiators 
of  the  peace,  particularly  John  Adams.”  The 
riders  added  by  the  house  were  so  obnoxious  to 
the  supporters  of  the  bill  that  it  was  allowed  to 
die  on  the  table.125  The  general  cry  was  that  the 
treaty  ought  not  to  be  executed  by  Virginia  until 
England  had  evacuated  the  posts  and  paid  for 
the  slaves. 

Adams  and  Jefferson,  in  the  spring  of  1786, 
had  a  conference  with  Duncan  Campbell,  chair¬ 
man  of  the  Committee  of  American  Merchants. 
Campbell  admitted  the  justness  of  the  contention 
that  the  planters  were  not  able  to  make  immediate 

123  Ibid.,  November  1,  1785;  May  22,  1786. 

124  After  October,  1784,  the  Virginia  assembly  discontinued  the 
meeting  in  May. 

125  Madison,  Writings ,  II.  210-12,  206. 


150 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


payments  and  agreed  for  the  debts  to  be  paid  in  five 
annual  installments.  Jefiferson  and  Adams  were 
unwilling  to  pay  interest  during  the  war ;  Camp¬ 
bell  contended  that  “the  renunciation  of  interest 
was  a  bitter  pill  that  the  merchants  would  not 
swallow.”  Several  weeks  after  Jefferson  returned 
to  Paris,  the  merchants  signified  their  willingness 
to  forego  the  interest  due  for  the  seven  years  of 
war  if  the  principal  and  other  interest  were 
paid.1*0  This  correspondence  was  laid  before  John 
Jay,  secretary  of  Congress.  Adams  complained 
that  Great  Britain  would  not  go  further  in  making 
a  commercial  treaty  until  the  states  fulfilled  their 
part  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  On  October  13, 
1786,  Jay  made  a  report  to  Congress  on  the  exe¬ 
cution  of  the  treaty,  sustaining  in  part  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  British  government.127  Jay’s  report 
was  acted  upon,  and  resolutions  were  sent  to  the 
states  on  April  13  calling  upon  them  to  repeal 
all  laws  repugnant  to  the  treaty.128 

A  bill  for  compliance  with  the  congressional 
resolutions  of  March,  1787,  was  introduced  into 
the  Virginia  assembly  in  October.  Patrick 
Henry,  who  “did  not  think  that  the  interest  of 
Virginia  could  be  trusted”  with  Congress,  agi- 

128  Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.  210-12,  221-22. 

“  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  IV.  186-7. 

128  Madison,  Writings,  II.  355,  341,  349. 


LOYALISTS  AND  DEBTS 


151 


tated  for  their  defeat.129  The  bill  was  debated 
in  the  assembly  for  four  days  and  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  seventy-five  to  forty-two.  On  December 
12,  a  bill  was  passed130  to  repeal  all  laws  that  pro¬ 
hibited  the  recovery  of  British  debts,  but  a  sub¬ 
sequent  bill,  adopted  by  a  vote  of  eighty  to  thirty- 
one,131  provided  that  the  law  was  not  to  go  into 
effect  until  Congress  notified  Virginia  that  Great 
Britain  had  evacuated  the  posts  and  paid  for  the 
slaves.132 

“I  am  persuaded  that  a  large  number  of  the 
citizens  of  the  state  are  warmly  opposed  to  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  British  Debts,”  John  Dawson  wrote  to 
Madison  on  April  15,  1787.133  Alexander  Mc- 
Caul,  agent  for  Kippen  and  Company,  wrote  to 
Jefferson  from  Glasgow  on  August  14,  1788, 
that  out  of  the  large  number  of  “prominent  Vir¬ 
ginians”  indebted  to  him,  only  three  men  had 
signified  their  willingness  to  pay.134  In  truth,  the 
Virginia  planters  were  bankrupt.  In  1786-7  the 
clamor  for  paper  money  was  renewed.  Patrick 

129  James  McClurg  to  James  Madison,  August  15,  1787,  in  Let¬ 
ters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV. 

130  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XII.  528. 

131  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  October  1787,  pp.  51,  52, 
79-80. 

132  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XII.  529. 

“John  Dawson  to  James  Madison,  April  15,  1787,  in  Letters 
to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV. 

134  Alexander  McCaul  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  August  14,  1788, 
in  Jefferson  Papers,  XLII. 


152 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Henry  converted  Prince  Edward  County  to  the 
support  of  paper  currency;135  in  the  assembly  he 
emphasized  the  great  distress  of  the  people  and 
charged  Congress  with  openly  violating  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  Virginia.136  Albemarle  County  petitioned 
the  assembly  in  1787  for  paper  money  that  would 
be  legal  tender.137  In  Greenbriar  County  three 
hundred  men  signed  an  association  to  oppose  the 
payment  of  taxes  and  pledged  themselves  to  stop 
the  proceedings  of  the  next  court.138  The  majority 
of  the  debtors  in  Virginia  had  neither  the  means 
nor  the  inclination  to  fulfill  that  part  of  the  treaty 
which  provided  for  the  payment  of  debts.139 

135  James  McClurg  to  James  Madison,  August  5,  1787,  in  Let¬ 
ters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV. 

IM  Archibald  Stuart  to  James  Madison,  November  9,  1787,  in 
Letters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV. 

137  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  Series  Two,  II.  213-16. 

138  James  McClurg  to  James  Madison,  August  22,  1787,  in  Let¬ 
ters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV. 

138  For  an  admirable  treatment  of  the  British  debts  in  negoti¬ 
ations  with  Great  Britain  see  Bemis,  Jay’s  Treaty,  especially 
ch.  v. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Did  the  treaty  of  1783  supersede  the  laws  of 
a  state?  Were  laws  in  contravention  of  a  treaty 
valid?  “The  question  is  one  coming  under  the 
Treaty — the  courts  must  decide  upon  it — It  can¬ 
not  be  the  wish  of  any  American  Whig,  and  I 
am  sure  it  cannot  be  yours,  that  the  legislature  of 
any  state  should  wrest  a  question  of  such  high 
legal  importance  from  the  judicial  department,” 
J.  F.  Mercer  of  Maryland  wrote  to  James  Madi¬ 
son  in  commenting  upon  the  laws  passed  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  Maryland  to  prevent  the  execution  of 
the  treaty.1  The  foregoing  chapter  has  indicated 
the  unwillingness  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
to  execute  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  The  fate  of  the 
treaty,  however,  was  ultimately  to  be  transferred 
from  the  legislative  to  the  judicial  department, 
and  from  the  state  to  the  federal  government. 

1 J.  F.  Mercer  to  Madison,  December  23,  1786.  Letters  to 
Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XV.  Madison  accepted  the  position 
of  Mercer  as  expressed  in  this  letter  and  wrote  to  Edmund 
Pendleton  of  the  Virginia  court  of  appeals  on  January  21,  1791, 
that  he  thought  the  treaty  repealed  all  laws  that  were  in  con¬ 
travention  to  it.  The  action  to  repeal  by  the  state  legislature, 
Madison  thought  merely  a  matter  of  form.  See  Madison,  Writ¬ 
ings,  VI.  22.  In  the  case  of  Bayard  vs.  Singleton,  the  North  Caro¬ 
lina  courts  declared  a  law  of  that  state  unconstitutional  and  void 
because  it  conflicted  with  the  treaty  of  1783.  1  Martin,  42. 


154 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


In  1783  there  were  five  grades  of  courts  in 
Virginia.  The  county  courts,  a  continuation  of 
colonial  institutions,  had  jurisdiction  in  civil  cases 
not  involving  more  than  ten  pounds ;  as  the  British 
debts  were  almost  always  for  sums  in  excess  of 
this  amount,  “few  British  debt  cases,  if  any,  came 
in  these  courts.”2  The  Virginia  constitution  of 
1776  provided  that  there  should  be  a  general  court, 
an  admiralty  court,  and  a  court  of  chancery.3 
These  courts  were  established  by  an  act  of  the 
assembly  in  1777.  The  general  court  was  a  com¬ 
mon  law  court ;  the  admiralty  court,  as  its  name 
indicates,  had  maritime  jurisdiction,  and  the  chan¬ 
cery  court  was  a  court  of  equity.4  The  court  of 
appeals,  the  highest  court  in  the  state,  was  added 
to  the  judicial  system  in  1778.5  Justices  for  the 
county  courts  were  appointed  by  the  governor  in 
council ;  the  judges  in  the  general,  admiralty,  and 
chancery  courts  were  appointed  by  the  assembly 
and  held  office  during  good  behavior.6  Judges 
from  the  last  three  courts  presided  over  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  of  Appeals. 

2  James  Monroe  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  May  1,  1792,  Jefferson 
Papers,  LXXIII. 

3  Virginia  Constitution  of  1776,  Arts.  14,  15. 

*  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  389-429. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  522. 

*  Constitution  of  1776,  Arts.  14,  15. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


155 


The  first  constitution  of  Virginia  provided  for 
complete  separation  of  the  three  departments  of 
government.7  This  separation  of  the  three  de¬ 
partments,  however,  was  not  observed.  The  courts 
were  established  by  the  legislative  department; 
the  salaries  of  the  judges  were  fixed  by  the  assem¬ 
bly,  and,  although  the  state  constitution  stipulated 
that  these  salaries  should  not  be  changed  during 
the  tenure  of  office,  the  legislature  frequently  fixed 
new  schedules  of  pay.8  The  Virginia  courts,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  provision  for  independence  in 
the  state  constitution,  could  scarcely  be  said  to  be 
independent  of  the  legislative  body.  Loyalists 
who  were  convicted  in  the  courts  almost  uniform¬ 
ly  secured  the  intercession  of  the  legislature  in 


7  Bill  of  Rights  of  1776,  Art.  5. 

8  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX.  521;  X.  278,  473.  These 
changes  were  made  on  account  of  the  continual  depreciation  of 
the  currency.  In  1788  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  was 
further  intruded  upon  by  the  legislature,  when  an  act  of  assembly 
greatly  increased  the  work  of  the  admiralty  and  general  courts 
and  more  than  doubled  the  work  of  the  chancery  court.  There 
was  no  provision  for  an  increase  in  the  judges’  salaries.  The 
courts  protested,  and  a  petition  drawn  up  by  the  judges  was  sent 
to  the  assembly.  The  judges  threatened  to  appeal  to  the  people 
if  the  legislative  department  did  not  observe  the  complete  sepa¬ 
ration  of  powers  as  provided  for  in  the  constitution  of  the  state. 
Subsequent  to  this,  the  judges  resigned  their  office,  but  they  later 
requalified  under  an  act  of  December  23,  1788.  The  legislative 
was  the  first  of  the  three  coordinate  branches  of  the  government 
to  come  to  its  own.  The  judicial  department  was  established  by 
the  legislature  and  was  partly  at  its  mercy.  See  Daniel  Call, 
Report  of  Cases  argued  and  adjudged  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
Virginia,  (1833),  IV.  135-51.  Also  1  Virginia,  98-108. 


156 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


their  behalf.9  It  was  the  “opinion  of  the  ablest 
counsel  at  the  bar  that  these  [British]  debts  were 
recoverable,  and  that  no  law  prohibited  it,  and  if 
it  were  otherwise  the  Treaty  would  control  it — 
and  several  of  the  state  judges  entertain  the  same 
opinion — but  the  British  merchants  generally  de¬ 
clined  to  bring  suits  prior  to”  the  adoption  of  the 
federal  Constitution ;  “for  the  motive  to  this  con¬ 
duct  ’tis  not  necessary  to  hazard  a  conjecture.”10 
Edmund  Randolph,  who  had  been  attorney-gen¬ 
eral  prior  to  his  election  as  governor,  thought  the 
treaty  paramount  law,  “or  at  least  to  be  one  of 
those  laws  which  are,  in  my  opinion,  beyond 
repeal.”11  Had  the  judiciary  of  the  state  been 
independent,  as  provided  in  the  constitution,  what 
might  have  been  the  fate  of  the  Virginia  debtor 
in  Virginia  courts  would  be  a  matter  of  conjec¬ 
ture.  The  legislature,  however,  was  supreme,  and 
its  temper  against  the  payment  of  British  debts 
was  well  known;  the  British  creditor  had  small 
chance  to  recover  property  under  the  Virginia  law 
in  a  Virginia  court. 

The  position  of  the  British  creditor  was  some¬ 
what  changed  by  the  adoption  of  the  federal  Con¬ 
stitution.  The  Constitution  provided  that  the  ju- 

9  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1782,  pp.  24,  33. 

10  James  Monroe  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  May  1,  1792,  Jefferson 
Papers,  LXXIII. 

11  M.  D.  Conway,  Edmund  Randolph,  p.  72. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


157 


dicial  power  of  the  federal  government  should  ex¬ 
tend  to  all  cases  arising  under  treaties  made  by  the 
United  States.  It  anticipated  the  transfer  of 
British  suits  for  debts  and  property  from  state 
to  federal  courts.  This  threat  to  debtors  was  the 
most  objectionable  part  of  the  Constitution  to 
Virginia.  Edmund  Randolph,  a  member  of  the 
Virginia  assembly  in  1787,12  regarded  the  propo¬ 
sal  to  repeal  all  laws  conflicting  with  the  treaty 
of  1783  as  a  test  of  the  strength  of  the  constitu¬ 
tional  party  in  the  state.  “A  question  is  allotted 
for  tomorrow  by  which  it  will  be  known  how  the 
party  positively  against  the  constitution  stands 
as  to  numbers,  a  motion  was  postponed  until  that 
day  for  repealing  the  laws  against  the  recovery 
of  British  debts.  Much  of  the  repugnance  to  this 
motion  will  be  founded  on  the  danger  of  every 
defendant  being  hurried  sooner  or  later  to  the 
seat  of  the  Federal  Government.  This  is  the 
most  vulnerable  and  odious  part  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion.  I  shall  therefore  conclude,  if  the  acts  be 
repealed,  that  the  majority  of  the  legislature  may 
be  said  to  have  overcome  the  most  objectionable 
points.”13  An  exaggerated  report  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  rumored  “there  were  only  two  men  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  who  were  not  in  debt  to  be  found  among 

12  Ibid.,  p.  96. 

13  Ibid. 


158 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


the  enemies  of  the  Constitution.”14  On  the  other 
hand,  the  creditors  to  whom  money  was  due  from 
Virginia  anxiously  anticipated  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.15 

The  ratification  of  the  federal  Constitution  was 
bitterly  contested  in  Virginia.  The  proposed 
change  in  government  involved  more  than  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  political  theories  for  the  Virginian. 
The  proposed  government  transferred  the  claims 
over  disputed  debts  and  titles  for  contested  lands 
from  friendly  local  courts  to  new,  and  in  many 
respects,  foreign  courts.  ‘‘British  debts  and  the 
Indiana  claims  are  the  principal  topics  of  private 
discussion,  and  intrigue,  as  well  as  public  declama¬ 
tion”,  Madison  wrote  to  Washington  from  the 
Virginia  ratifying  convention.16  In  the  struggle 
against  ratification,  Patrick  Henry  and  George 
Mason  attempted  to  wrest  the  natural  support  of 
the  aristocratic  tidewater  section  from  the  Con¬ 
stitution  by  indicating  the  great  distress  that 
would  be  brought  to  the  planters  when  their  Brit¬ 
ish  creditors  summoned  them  before  the  federal 
courts.  “If  ever  a  suit  be  instituted”,  said  Henry 
in  debate  on  June  5,  “by  a  British  creditor  for  a 

14  C.  A.  Beard,  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  p.  318n. 

“Alexander  McCaul  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  August  14,  1788- 
Jefferson  Papers,  XLII. 

“Madison,  Writings,  V.  179n. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


159 


sum,  the  defendant  had  better  pay  it  than  appeal 
to  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,”  where  all  the  de¬ 
fendants  would  ultimately  be  carried.17  Mason 
feared  that  under  the  new  system  there  was  grave 
danger  that  British  interests  would  work  them¬ 
selves  into  the  council  of  the  state,  “which  might 
have  pernicious  consequence.  The  great  houses 
of  British  merchants  would  spare  no  pains  to  in¬ 
sinuate  the  instruments  of  their  views  into  the 
government.”18  Governor  Randolph  was  aware 
of  the  economic  ruin  the  British  creditors  would 
bring  upon  Virginia  if  they  were  permitted  to 
collect  debts  in  the  state  without  restraint,  but 
he  thought  a  strong  federal  government  could 
better  protect  the  interest  of  the  debtors  from 
the  creditors.19  George  Mason  said  that  “he 
along  with  30,000  other  people  interested  in  dis¬ 
puted  lands”  opposed  the  judiciary  provision,  fear¬ 
ing  that  Lord  Fairfax  would  be  able  to  recover, 
before  a  federal  court,  the  lands  which  had  been 
seized  by  the  Virginia  legislature.20  John  Mar¬ 
shall,  ignorant  of  the  role  he  was  to  play  in  the 
new  government,  expressed  it  as  his  opinion  that 
any  case  Fairfax  might  bring  would  be  decided 
in  a  Virginia  court  by  a  Virginia  law  “upon  the 

17  Jonathan  Elliot,  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitution,  III.  543. 

18  Ibid. 

19  Ibid.,  p.  74. 

20  Ibid.,  pp.  528-29. 


160 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


temper  of  our  neighbors.”21  Randolph  came  to 
the  assistance  of  the  future  chief  justice,  pleading 
that  no  person  in  the  Northern  Neck  be  influenced 
by  the  “assertions  of  Mr.  Mason.”22  Seventeen 
amendments  were  proposed  to  the  Constitution 
and,  after  endorsing  these  amendments,  the  con¬ 
stitutional  party  was  able  to  muster  a  majority  of 
ten  votes  for  ratification.  The  fourteenth  of  the 
proposed  amendments  is  significant.  It  provided 
in  part,  “that  the  judiciary  power  of  the  United 
States  shall  extend  to  no  case  where  the  cause 
of  action  shall  have  originated  before  the  ratifi¬ 
cation  of  this  constitution;  except  in  disputes  be¬ 
tween  states  over  territory ;  disputes  between  per¬ 
sons  claiming  lands  under  the  grants  of  dififerent 
states,  and  suits  for  debt  due  the  United  States.”2' 
The  first  Congress  paid  little  or  no  attention  to 
this  proposed  amendment ;  for  Virginia,  it  came  to 
an  untimely  end  at  the  hands  of  a  government 
controlled  by  the  commercial  class. 

The  ratification  of  the  Constitution  by  the  states 
brought  fear  to  many  a  debtor  in  Virginia.  St. 
George  Tucker  wrote  to  his  stepsons,  one  of  them 
John  Randolph  of  Roanoke:  “You  will  have  heard 
that  the  constitution  has  been  adopted  by  this 

31  Eliott.  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitution,  III.  559. 

22  Ibid.,  pp.  574-75. 

23  Ibid.,  pp.  559-61. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


161 


state.  That  event  my  dear  children,  affects  your 
interest  more  nearly  than  that  of  many  others. 
The  recovery  of  the  British  debts  can  no  longer 
be  postponed  and  there  seems  now  to  be  moral 
certainty  that  your  patrimony  will  all  go  to  satisfy 
the  unjust  debts  from  your  papa  to  the  Han- 
burys.  The  consequence,  my  dear  boys,  must  be 
obvious  to  you.  Your  sole  dependence  must  be  on 
*  your  personal  abilities  and  exertions.”24  Madison 
wrote  to  Jefferson  soon  after  Virginia  ratified  the 
Constitution  that  “he  anticipated  no  irregular  op¬ 
position”  to  the  new  government,  but  “what  local 
eruptions  may  be  occasioned  by  ill-timed  or  rig¬ 
orous  execution  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  against 
British  Debts,  I  will  not  pretend  to  say.”25 

As  soon  as  the  new  Constitution  was  adopted, 
British  merchants  hastened  to  bring  their  suits 
in  the  ETnited  States  district  and  circuit  courts 
of  Virginia  and  in  the  Virginia  state  courts. 
John  Jay,  the  chief  justice,  in  opening  the  first 
federal  court  in  New  York  on  April  4,  1790,  in 
his  charge  to  the  grand  jury,  emphasized  the  sanc¬ 
tity  of  treaties.  Treaties,  he  said,  were  obliga¬ 
tions  upon  nations ;  no  state  could  alter  these  obli¬ 
gations  or  contracts.  The  Chief  Justice  repeated 
these  reproaches  to  other  delinquent  states:  to 

24  Conway,  Edmund  Randolph,  p.  106. 

26  Madison,  Writings,  I.  405. 


162 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


the  grand  jury  of  Connecticut,  on  April  22,  in 
Massachusetts,  on  May  4,  and  in  New  Hampshire, 
on  May  20.26  There  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  what 
the  head  of  the  highest  court  in  the  United  States 
thought  of  the  attempts  of  the  states  to  violate 
treaties  made  by  the  central  government.  The 
docket  of  the  circuit  court  in  Virginia  was 
crowded  with  suits  brought  by  British  creditors 
against  their  American  debtors — cases  that  came 
under  the  treaty  of  1783.  In  Order  Book  I  of  the 
United  States  Circuit  court  of  Virginia,  covering 
the  period  1790  to  1795,  three  fourths  of  the  cases 
listed  involved  contracts  between  British  mer¬ 
chants  and  American  debtors.  Scarcely  a  British 
house  trading  in  Virginia  in  1775  is  unrepre¬ 
sented.  Two  suits  are  listed  against  Thomas 
Jefferson,  executor;27  John  Bowman,  executor  for 
Bowman  and  Spiers,  British  merchants,  had  seven 
suits  against  Virginia  debtors  on  the  docket;28 
Buchanan  and  Hastie,  Cunningham  and  Com¬ 
pany,  Dobson  and  Dalteria,  Donaldson  and  Com¬ 
pany,  Robert  Donald,  Jones  and  Farrell,  Kippen 
and  Company,  all  British  merchants,  filed  suits  for 
debts  due  from  Virginians.29  Osgood  Hanbury’s 

26  H.  P.  Johnston,  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers  of  John 
Jay,  III.  387. 

37  Book  I.  71.  Virginia  United  States  Circuit  Court.  (Rich¬ 
mond,  Va.) 

28  Ibid.,  passim. 

29  Ibid. 


THE  TREATL  OF  PEACE 


163 


estate  entered  suit  to  recover  the  debt  due  from 
the  Randolph  heirs.30  The  Virginia  assembly, 
in  its  excitement  over  the  probable  outcome  of 
these  suits  in  the  federal  courts,  attempted  to  pass 
resolutions  in  November,  1791,  a  week  before  the 
circuit  court  in  Virginia  was  convened,  protest¬ 
ing  against  the  recovery  of  debts  by  British  sub¬ 
jects  until  Great  Britain  had  evacuated  the  wes¬ 
tern  posts  and  paid  for  the  Negroes  carried  away. 
The  resolutions  failed,  however,  and  instead  a  set 
of  resolutions,  milder  in  tone,  were  sent  to  the 
Virginia  Senators,  urging  Congress  to  come  to 
the  relief  of  the  state.  Congress  did  nothing. 

The  first  of  the  British  debt  cases,  Jones  vs. 
Walker,  was  called  on  November  23,  1791,  in  the 
circuit  court  at  Richmond.  Jones  represented  the 
interests  of  Jones  and  Farrell  of  Bristol.  This 
British  company  had  brought  suit  against  Dr. 
Thomas  Walker,  of  Albemarle  County,  for  £2151 
which  was  alleged  to  be  due  them.  Walker  had 
paid  the  debt  into  the  Virginia  loan  office  on  May 
25,  1779,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Virginia  law  of  1777,  and  contended  that  the  debt 
was  discharged.  The  British  house  of  Jones  and 
Farrell  had  considerable  interest  at  stake  in  the 
trial,  for  approximately  £25,000  due  to  them  had 


30  Ibid.,  94. 


164 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


been  paid  into  the  Virginia  loan  office.31  The 
company,  therefore,  engaged  four  able  lawyers  to  anc 
argue  their  case  in  the  circuit  court.  The  debtors  tioi 
made  common  cause  with  the  defendant  and  em-  of 
ployed  Patrick  Henry,  leading  orator  of  Vir-  jot 
ginia,  James  Innis,  the  retiring  attorney-general,  ten 
John  Marshall,  a  rising  young  attorney,  and  Alex-  a 
ander  Campbell.  Justices  Johnson  and  Jllair  of  cat 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  and  Justice  ha 
Griffin  of  the  Virginia  district  court  presided,  sti 
The  interest  in  the  case  was  intense.  Two  hun-  ibe 
dred  and  seventy-two  thousand  pounds  was  in-  on 
volved  in  the  decision  of  the  court.  The  assembly  lit 
was  in  session,  but  the  Speaker  was  unable  to  w: 
maintain  a  quorum  in  the  house  while  the  case  a 
was  being  heard.  The  court  room  of  the  capitol  p< 
was  insufficient  to  accommodate  the  crowd,  and  c( 
the  judges  permitted  the  vacant  seats  of  the  bench  z< 
and  the  windows  behind  it  to  be  occupied.  The 
proceedings  were  so  conducted  as  to  involve  all  ri 
the  legal  issues  arising  out  of  this  class  of  debts,  d 
There  was  no  jury  trial ;  the  court  was  first  to  p 
determine  upon  the  proceedings  of  (the  law.  The  ii 
plaintiff  argued  that  debts  due  to  individuals  were  t 
not  subject  to  confiscation  in  time  of  war,  and,  ii 
granted  that  they  were,  confiscation  was  an  act 
that  could  be  performed  only  by  a  sovereign  state,  : 

31  Auditor’s  Day  Books,  1778-1781,  passim. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


165 


ie 

oand  Virginia  was  not  sovereign  until  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  independence  by  Great  Britain.  The  laws 
•of  Virginia  sequestering  debts,  therefore,  were 
not  valid,  but  only  an  acknowledgment  of  the  exis¬ 
tence  of  the  debts.  Granted,  however,  (which  the 
plaintiff  did  not  do)  that  the  debts  were  confis¬ 
cated  and  sequestered  in  a  legal  way,  all  such  debts 
had  been  restored  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States  declared  treaties  to 
be  the  law  of  the  land.  The  treaty  was  binding 
on  each  party,  and  the  contention  that  an  infrac¬ 
tion  on  the  part  of  either  relieved  the  other  party 
was  unsound.  The  question  of  the  infraction  of 
a  treaty  was  one  to  be  decided  “by  the  supreme 
power  of  the  nation  only,  and  one  of  which  this 
court  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  take  cogni- 

5  jqo 

zance. 

Patrick  Henry  entertained  a  crowded  court 
room  for  three  days  in  his  reply  for  the  defen¬ 
dants.  He  made  the  most  of  the  assertion  by  the 
plaintiff  lawyer,  Ronald,  that  Virginia  was  not  an 
independent  state  “before  the  monarch  of  that  lit¬ 
tle  island  in  the  Atlantic  gave  his  puny  assent  to 
it.”  The  debts,  Henry  argued,  were  forfeited,  and 


32  Ronald,  Wickham,  Starke,  and  Baker  were  employed  by  the 
plaintiffs.  Ronald  was  a  Scotchman,  who  had  been  exceedingly 
lukewarm  in  his  loyalty  to  the  American  cause.  He  was  looked 
upon  as  a  Tory.  Wickham  was  apparently  absent  from  Virginia 
during  the  war.  His  name  is  among  those  who  returned  in 
1782-83.  See  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers ,  II.  204,  207,  277. 


166 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


they  could  be  recovered  only  by  treaty.  They  could 
not  be  recovered,  however,  by  the  treaty  of  1783, 
for  this  treaty  had  been  broken  by  Great  Britain 
when  that  nation  refused  to  evacuate  the  western 
posts  and  pay  for  the  Negroes  carried  away  upon 
the  evacuation  of  New  York.  Great  Britain, 
having  broken  the  treaty,  could  claim  no  benefits 
under  it.  Henry  contended  that  the  courts  should 
have  cognizance  of  this  infraction  of  the  treaty, 
for  the  Constitution  had  given  the  judiciary  juris¬ 
diction  in  all  cases  arising  under  treaties.  Even 
if  Great  Britain  had  not  broken  the  treaty  of 
1783,  that  treaty  could  not  revive  the  class  of 
debts  at  issue,  for  the  treaty  said  bona  fide 
debts;  the  debtor  had  paid  the  sum  at  issue  into 
the  loan  office  of  Virginia  under  a  law  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  had  thereby  discharged  the  debt.  It 
could  no  longer  be  called  a  bona  fide  debt.33 

It  was  the  general  opinion  “out  of  doors”  that 
an  infraction  of  the  treaty  by  Great  Britain  re¬ 
lieved  the  Virginia  debtor  from  obligations  to  pay, 
but  the  argument  that  the  payment  into  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  loan  office  was  a  discharge  of  the  debt  was 
not  so  readily  accepted.  The  latter  position  was 

33  Jefferson  thought  that,  in  the  case  of  Jones  vs.  Walker,  Henry 
“really  distinguished  himself.  He  had  exerted  a  degree  of  indus¬ 
try — and  not  only  seemed  but  made  himself  truly  learned  on  the 
subject.”  Jefferson,  Writings,  IX.  339.  For  the  trial,  see  Henry, 
Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  II.  471-76;  III.  601-48. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


167 


altogether  too  likely  to  involve  the  state  in  pay¬ 
ments  that  would  fall  on  all  the  taxpayers.34 
Judges  Johnston  and  Griffin  were  in  doubt;35 
Justice  Blair  was  called  home  on  account  of  the 
death  of  his  son,  and  no  decision  was  reached  by 
the  court.  “The  judges  have  decided  nothing” — 
nothing  has  been  done  only  a  delay  “of  legislative 
matters  for  six  days.”38  The  forces  of  provin¬ 
cialism  and  agrarianism  rallied  in  Virginia 
against  federalism  and  commercialism. 

Daniel  L.  Hylton,  of  the  firm  of  D.  L.  Hylton 
and  Company,  Virginia  merchants,  debtors  of 
Farrell  and  Jones,  Osgood  Hanbury,  and  Donald¬ 
son  and  Company,  British  merchants,  wrote  to 
Henry  in  March,  1792,  and  engaged  him  to  de¬ 
fend  suits  entered  in  the  Virginia  circuit  court. 
“Your  countrymen  look  up  to  you  as  the  rock  of 
their  salvation”,  he  wrote  Henry.37  The  argu¬ 
ment  begun  in  Jones  vs.  Walker  in  November, 
1791,  was  continued  in  Ware,  Admr.  of  Jones, 
vs.  Hylton  in  the  May  term,  1793,  of  the  Vir- 

34  Hardin  Burnley  to  James  Madison,  December  3,  1791.  Let¬ 
ters  to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XVIII.  Burnley  was  a  return¬ 
ing  merchant  and  was  personally  interested  in  the  decision  of  the 
court. 

35  James  Iredell  to  Samuel  Johnston,  May  29,  1793.  Hayes 
Papers  (Edenton,  North  Carolina). 

30  Francis  Corbin  to  James  Madison,  January  7,  1792,  Letters 
to  Madison,  Madison  Papers,  XVIII. 

37  Henry,  Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  II.  473. 


168 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


ginia  circuit  court.38  Henry  again  spoke  with  elo¬ 
quence  to  an  attentive  and  interested  audience.39 
John  Jay  and  James  Iredell  from  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  and  Judge  Griffin  of  the 
district  court  of  Virginia  presided.  Iredell  ad¬ 
mitted  that  he  was  swept  from  his  feet  by  Henry’s 
eloquence,  yet  “in  the  course  of  his  argument  he 
has  not  satisfied  me  in  the  slightest  degree  as  to 
anything  but  the  payments  into  the  treasury.” 
Neither  Jay  or  Iredell  thought  the  argument  that 
the  infraction  of  the  treaty  by  Great  Britain  should 
bar  recovery  of  the  debts  “seriously  tenable”.40 
The  court  ruled  that  the  debts  were  obligatory 
upon  the  debtors,  but  Justice  Iredell  and  District 
Judge  Griffin  held  that  the  payments  already 
made  into  the  loan  office  under  the  law  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  were  competent  to  bar  the  plaintiff  from 
recovery  of  that  part  of  the  debt  which  had  been 
paid  to  the  state.41  Chief  Justice  Jay  dissented,42 
and  the  plaintiff  took  appeal  to  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  from  that  part  of  the  decision 

38  Book  I,  141,  161,  381,  386.  Virginia  United  States  Circuit 
Court.  (Richmond,  Va.) 

39  M.  C.  Tyler,  Patrick  Henry,  pp.  322-27. 

40  James  Iredell  to  Samuel  Johnston,  May  29,  1793.  Hayes 
Paper  (Edenton,  North  Carolina). 

u  Daniel  L.  Hylton  had  paid  £933  into  the  loan  office  on  April 
26,  1779,  to  discharge  part  of  a  debt  due  to  Jones  and  Farrell. 
Auditor’s  Cash  Book,  1779. 

“Johnston,  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers  of  John  Jay, 
III.  478,  485,  486. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


169 


which  declared  the  payments  into  the  loan  office  a 
legal  discharge  of  the  debt. 

Chief  Justice  Jay’s  ability  as  a  judge  was  not 
questioned,  but  his  decision  made  him  very  un¬ 
popular  in  Virginia.  Edmund  Randolph,  now 
attorney-general  of  the  United  States,  wrote  to 
President  Washington  from  Virginia  that  it  was 
reported  the  Chief  Justice  had  been  insulted  by  a 
drunken  man  who  was  present  at  the  trial  in  the 
circuit  court.43  The  Virginia  assembly  sent  in¬ 
structions  to  their  senators  to  move  in  Congress 
that  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  (the 
article  providing  for  the  payment  of  debts)  be 
suspended  until  the  United  States  should  have 
assurances  that  the  treaty  was  being  fulfilled  by 
Great  Britain.  On  May  6,  1794,  Senator  James  ^ 
Monroe  asked  permission  to  bring  in  such  a  bill. 
Monroe’s  fellow-senator,  John  Taylor  of  Caro¬ 
line,  the  great  exponent  of  agrarianism,  ably  sup¬ 
ported  Monroe.  He  indicated  how  the  welfare  of 
his  state  was  being  sacrificed  to  northern  commer¬ 
cial  interests.  Sixteen  senators  voted  against 
Monroe’s  motion;  only  Taylor  and  Monroe  voted 
for  it.44 

That  part  of  the  decision  of  the  Virginia  cir¬ 
cuit  court  which  ruled  that  the  debtors  were  no 

43  Conway,  Edmund  Randolph,  p.  153. 

**  Annals  of  Congress.  3rd  Congress,  pp.  94,  95.  See  also  King, 
Life  and  Correspondence  of  Rufus  King,  I.  524. 


170 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


longer  liable  for  the  sums  that  had  been  paid  into 
the  state  loan  office  under  the  laws  of  Virginia 
was  reargued  upon  appeal  in  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  in  February,  1796.  On  March 
19,  the  Supreme  Court  handed  down  a  decision 
reversing  the  decision  of  the  lower  court.45  The 
Supreme  Court  ruled  that  Virginia  was  a  sover¬ 
eign  state  in  1777  and  capable  of  sequestering 
property,  but  the  treaty  of  1783,  made  by  common 
consent,  provided  that  there  should  be  no  legal 
impediment  in  collecting  bona  fide  debts.  The 
debts  paid  into  the  loan  office  were  bona  fide, 
and  there  was  a  legal  impediment ;  to-wit,  the 
Virginia  law.  Treaties  of  the  United  States  were 
the  law  of  the  land;  it  was  not  stipulated  in  the 
treaty  of  1783  that  the  states  would  repeal  all 
laws  preventing  the  recovery  of  debts;  this  was 
only  to  be  recommended  to  the  states.  However, 
it  was  agreed  that  “certain  things  should  not  be 
permitted  in  the  American  Courts  of  Justice — 
these  statutes  should  not  be  plead  to  bar  recov¬ 
ery.”  The  treaty,  the  Supreme  Court  held,  nulli¬ 
fied  the  laws  of  Virginia  that  were  in  contraven¬ 
tion  to  it.  Justice  Chase  gave  the  opinion,  and 
Justices  Cushing,  Patterson,  and  Wilson  con¬ 
curred.  Justice  Iredell  presented  the  opinion  he 
had  delivered  in  the  circuit  court  of  Virginia,  in 

45 Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser,  March  27,  1796. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


171 


which  he  upheld  again  the  position  that  Virginia 
was  competent  to  pass  such  a  law  and  that  the 
defendant  was  living  under  that  law  and  had  acted 
in  accordance  with  it.  The  debtor,  he  contended, 
discharged  the  debts  under  Virginia  law  and  could 
no  longer  be  held  liable.40 

This  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  did  not 
come  as  a  surprise  to  the  debtors.  The  Richmond 
and  Manchester  Advertiser  made  no  comment  in 
giving  the  opinion  of  the  court ;  it  was  nothing 
more  than  Republican  Virginia  expected  from 
the  Federalists  in  control  of  the  government. 
Such  a  ruling  meant  that  the  £272,000  that  had 
been  paid  into  the  loan  office  to  discharge  debts 
must  be  paid  again.  Naturally,  the  debtors  looked 
to  Virginia  for  relief.  Several  petitions  were 
presented  to  the  assembly  that  met  in  November, 
1796.  Wilson  Miles  Cary47  and  Joseph  Previt,48 
each  of  whom  had  made  payments  into  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  loan  office,  asked  that  the  state  come  to  their 
relief.  November  22,  a  petition  signed  by  Daniel 
L.  Hylton  and  Company,  Joseph  Jones,  Carter 
Page,  and  eleven  other  debtors  to  British  mer¬ 
chants,  who  had  made  payments  into  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  loan  office  totalling  approximately  forty- 

48  Ware,  Admr.  of  Jones,  vs.  Hylton,  3  Dallas  175-225. 

4‘  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1796,  p.  70. 

48  Ibid.,  p.  48. 


172 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


four  thousand  pounds,49  was  presented  to  the 
House  of  Delegates.  The  petitioners  requested 
that  they  be  permitted  to  appear  before  the  bar 
of  the  house  and  plead  their  case,  as  “all  the  pay¬ 
ments  into  the  Treasury  of  Virginia  have  been 
declared  to  be  absolutely  void  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.”50  The  payments  were 
discussed  in  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  a  set 
of  resolutions  was  drafted  in  the  committee  of 
the  whole  directing  the  United  States  senators 
from  Virginia  to  “use  their  best  endeavors  to 
obtain  compensation  for  the  citizens  of  this  state 
who  have  been  adjudged  to  be  liable  under  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  to  pay  debts  which  they  did  not 
owe  when  the  Treaty  was  entered  into”.51 
though  the  money  in  question  had  been  used  by 
Virginia  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  properly  be¬ 
longed  to  that  class  of  state  debts  assumed  by 
the  federal  government,  the  central  government 
gave  the  state  no  aid.  On  November  30,  1796, 
resolutions  were  introduced  into  the  Virginia 
House  of  Delegates  that  money  paid  into  the  loan 
office  during  the  war  should  be  repaid,  with  in¬ 
terest,  to  the  payees.52  The  resolutions  passed 
,^the  house  on  December  5  by  a  vote  of  one  hun- 

48  Auditor’s  Cash  Books,  1778-1781,  passim. 

50  Legislative  Petitions,  No.  3611. 

01  Ibid. 

“  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  November  1796,  p.  108. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


173 


dred  and  twenty-three  to  nine,  and  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  bring  in  a  bill.  The  bill,  con¬ 
taining  the  provisions  of  the  resolutions  of  No¬ 
vember  30  and  making  due  allowance  for  depre¬ 
ciation,  became  law  on  December  13.53  In  accor¬ 
dance  with  this  law,  certificates  were  issued  by 
Virginia  to  the  debtors  who  had  made  the  pay¬ 
ments.  The  auditor  was  paying  interest  on  these 
certificates  in  1800.54 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the 
foreign  creditors  were  successful  in  the  Virginia 
state  courts  as  well  as  the  federal  courts.  In  local 
courts,  the  debt  cases  were  postponed  as  long  as 
possible,  awaiting,  no  doubt,  rulings  from  higher 
courts.  In  April,  1791,  the  case  of  Mitchell  vs. 
Wallis,  entered  in  1789,  was  called  in  the  court 
at  Fredericksburg.  The  laws  of  Virginia  were 
pleaded  to  bar  recovery  of  a  British  debt  which 
came  under  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of 
1783.  James  Monroe,  the  attorney  for  the  defen¬ 
dant,  argued  the  Virginia  law  in  vain;  judgment 
was  rendered  for  the  plaintiff.55  William  B. 
Giles  wrote  to  Jefferson,  secretary  of  state,  that 
prior  to  May,  1792,  he  had  represented  the  British 

53  Ibid.,  pp.  127,  160,  194. 

54  Shepherd,  Statutes  at  Large,  II.  18.  See  also  Auditor’s  Books, 
1797-1800,  passim. 

55  William  Giles  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  May  1,  1792.  Jefferson 
Papers,  LXXIII. 


174 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


company  of  Robert  Donald  and  Company  “in  at 
least  one  hundred  cases  in  which  the  plaintiffs 
had  received  judgments  in  their  favor.66  The  case 
of  Page  vs.  Pendleton,  involving  the  payment  of 
a  British  debt  into  the  Virginia  loan  office,  was 
heard  in  chancery  in  May,  1793,  two  weeks  before 
the  case  of  Ware,  Admr.  of  Jones,  vs.  Hylton  was 
heard  in  the  United  States  circuit  court.  Judge 
Wythe  declared  that  a  controversy  in  the  courts 
of  either  country  should  be  decided  upon  the  same 
basis  as  a  decision  would  be  made  in  a  neutral 
country.  War,  he  ruled,  did  not  extinguish  debts, 
for  Virginia  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  British 
debtor  or  creditor.  Debts  could  be  extinguished 
only  by  payment.  “The  Treaty  of  Peace  with 
Great  Britain,  if  it  be  valid,  abrogated  the  acts 
of  every  state  in  the  union,  tending  to  obstruct 
the  recovery  of  British  debts  from  the  citizens 
of  those  states,”  and  it  is  not  within  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  the  court  to  take  cognizance  of  the  invali¬ 
dity  of  the  treaty.  The  great  chancellor  and 
teacher  ruled  that  the  payments  into  the  loan  office 
of  Virginia  did  not  discharge  debts  due  to  British 
subjects.37  Judge  Carrington,  in  the  Virginia 
court  of  appeals,  did  not  think  that  the  creditor 

M  William  Giles  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  May  1,  1792.  Jefferson 
Papers,  LXXIII. 

67  Wythe,  Chancery  Reports  (Edition  1853),  pp.  211-18.  Page 
vs.  Pendleton.  Judge  Wythe  had  paid  a  small  sum  into  the  loan 
office  on  August  7,  1779.  See  Auditor’s  Day  Book,  1779,  p.  20. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


175 


being  “a  British  subject  should  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  question.”58  Judge  Pendleton,  in  the 
same  court,  declared  that,  independently  of  the 
treaty,  the  British  creditors  should  be  allowed 
nothing,  but  ‘‘the  Treaty  is  the  law  of  the  land 
and  must  be  obeyed.”59 

Despite  these  decisions  in  the  state  and  federal 
courts,  debtors  attempted  by  one  means  or  another 
to  avoid  or  postpone  the  payments  due  to  British 
merchants,  but  the  judiciary  was  not  coerced. 
The  debtors  first  attempted  to  prevent  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  debt  by  exhibiting  bonds ;  they  would 
have  the  court  go  behind  the  bond.  The  Virginia 
court  ruled  in  the  case  of  Glen  and  Peter  vs. 
Cocke,  in  1794,  that  bonds  were  sufficient  evidence 
of  debts.60  Again  the  debtors  attempted  to  bar 
recovery  of  debts  by  pleading  statutes  of  limita¬ 
tion.  The  Virginia  courts  refused  to  allow  the 
time  previous  to  1783  to  be  added  to  the  time  sub¬ 
sequent  to  that  date  to  bar  recovery.61  The  only 
concession  that  the  debtor  secured  from  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  courts  was  the  disallowance  by  the  courts  of 

08  McCall  vs.  Turner,  1  Call,  133-46.  Judge  Carrington  had 
made  the  first  payment  into  the  loan  office  (£324),  in  1778  under 
the  law  sequestering  debts. 

™  Ibid,  Edmund  Pendleton  “Collector”  paid  £449  into  the  loan 
office  on  November  9,  1778.  Auditor’s  Day  Book,  1778,  p.  137. 

90 1  Washington  333. 

61 2  Washington  279-81. 


176 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


interest  on  debts  during  the  period  of  the  war.62  si 
Subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
the  interest  of  the  the  British  creditor  was  safe 
in  both  state  and  federal  courts. 

The  payment  of  the  debts  could  no  longer  he. 
postponed.  The  old  Virginia  aristocracy  of  colon¬ 
ial  days  was  forced  to  pay  the  claims  that  had  been 
accumulating  for  generations.  Usually  the  plant¬ 
er  saved  the  cost  of  litigation  and  settled  with 
his  creditor  out  of  court.  It  was  customary  for 
the  British  merchants  to  claim  no  interest  for 
the  period  during  the  war,  where  accounts  were 
settled  without  recourse  to  the  courts.63  The  set¬ 
tlement  of  long  standing  debts  brought  distress 
to  the  colonial  aristocracy ;  some  borrowed  heavily 
in  France  and  remained  on  their  old  plantations 
to  struggle  with  poverty,  but  many  sold  what  they 
possessed,  paid  what  debts  they  could,  and  moved 
across  the  Appalachians  to  rebuild  their  fortunes.] 

In  the  meantime,  the  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  placed  on  a 
new  footing  by  Jay’s  Treaty.  This  treaty,  which 
was  to  settle  outstanding  difficulties  between  the 
two  nations,  said  nothing  of  the  slaves  that  had 
been  carried  away  by  the  British  at  the  end  of  the 
American  Revolution.  It  did  provide  for  the 

6'2  Call  530.  See  also  Hopkins  vs.  Bell,  3  Cranch  640-42. 

63  Rowland,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  George  Mason,  II.  352. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


177 


i  surrender  of  the  posts  in  the  Northwest,  but  this 
■  was  no  great  concession  to  Virginia  and  southern 
agrarianism,  since  their  interest  lay  farther  to 
the  south.  Jay’s  Treaty  gave  to  British  subjects 
the  privilege  of  possessing  property  in  the  United 
States,  a  right  that  had  been  denied  by  Virginia. 
Such  a  provision  greatly  aided  the  British  credit¬ 
ors  in  the  settlement  of  accounts  against  American 
debtors.  And,  finally,  despite  the  amazing  success 
of  the  creditors  in  American  courts  following  the 
ratification  of  the  Constitution,  the  claims  of 
British  subjects  against  American  citizens  were 
removed  from  the  judiciary  and  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  joint  commission  for  settlement.  The 
American  citizen  who  had  claims  against  British 
citizens  did  not  have  recourse  to  this  commission 
until  he  had  exhausted  the  channels  of  the  British 
courts.64  This  provision  for  the  removal  of  a 
question  of  such  high  legal  importance  from  the 
American  judiciary  is  the  more  appalling,  when 
it  is  recalled  that  the  American  negotiator  was 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 

Jay’s  Treaty  provided  that  a  joint  commission 
should  be  appointed,  two  members  by  the  United 
States,  two  members  by  Great  Britain,  and  a  fifth 
member  selected  by  the  appointed  commissioners, 


M  Bemis,  Jay’s  Treaty,  passim. 


178 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


to  hear  claims  arising  under  the  treaty  of  1783. 
The  commissioners  selected  the  fifth  member  by 
lot,  and  the  choice  fell  upon  the  British  nominee, 
giving  the  British  a  majority  on  the  commission. 
The  British  insisted  that  interest  should  be  paid 
for  the  period  during  the  war  upon  the  debts  owed 
British  subjects;  the  Americans  dissented.  The 
British  likewise  urged  the  restoration  of  the  es¬ 
tates  of  loyalists  confiscated  by  bills  of  attainder ; 
again  the  Americans  refused  to  agree.  After  con¬ 
siderable  discussion,  the  Americans  withdrew 
from  the  commission,  and  the  negotiations  were  : 
stopped.  The  agrarian  class  secured  control  of 
the  government  in  1801.  The  dispute  with  Great 
Britain  over  the  debts  was  compromised  by  the 
Convention  of  1802.  In  this  convention,  the 
United  States  agreed  to  pay  six  hundred  thousand 
sterling  to  the  British  government  as  a  settle¬ 
ment  for  all  outstanding  claims.  This  amount 
was  duly  paid  in  three  annual  installments  from 
the  treasury  of  the  United  States.65 

65  American  State  Papers,  Foreign,  II.  382-486.  See  also  Bemis. 
Jay’s  Treaty,  p.  318. 


CONCLUSION 


In  the  foregoing  pages  several  phases  of  the 
Revolution  in  Virginia  have  been  followed  in  de¬ 
tail  and  ,  as  a  result  of  the  investigation,  a  recapit¬ 
ulation  may  be  made.  In  the  first  place,  it  should 
be  emphasized  that  the  American  Revolution  in 
Virginia  did  not  have  the  support  of  the  mer¬ 
chant  factors  trading  in  the  colony.  The  mer¬ 
chants  in  Virginia  were  loyalists.  Virginia  was 
an  agrarian  colony.  The  primitive  agricultural 
methods  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen¬ 
turies  exhausted  the  soil,  and  the  future  of  the 
colony  depended  upon  a  continual  opening  of 
virgin  lands.  The  merchant  looked  to  the  sea, 
back  to  the  Old  World — his  prosperity  was  bound 
inseparably  with  navigation  laws ;  the  planter 
looked  to  the  west,  forward  to  the  New  World — 
his  fortune  was  buried  deep  in  the  new  and  fer¬ 
tile  lands  on  the  outer  fringe  of  civilization.  The 
British  government,  seeking  to  check  the  French 
advance  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,  had  permitted 
and  encouraged  migration  across  the  mountains 
prior  to  1763.  But,  with  the  expulsion  of  the 
French  from  North  America  and  the  growth  of 
the  Indian  problem  until  it  became  continental  in 


180 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


scope,  British  policy  in  the  West  was  radically 
changed.  A  new  government  directly  under  the 
control  of  the  crown  was  set  up  in  the  Mississ¬ 
ippi  Valley,  and  the  territory  beyond  the  Appala¬ 
chians  was  taken  from  the  colonies,  which  claimed 
it  under  charters,  and  was  temporarily  closed  to 
settlement.  This  new  land  policy  barred  Virgin¬ 
ians  from  the  undeveloped  country.  English-bred 
planters  became  American  patriots;  agrarianism 
in  the  South  joined  hands  with  commercialism  in 
the  North  to  throw  off  the  British  yoke.  For  Vir¬ 
ginia,  the  Revolution  was  in  part  a  war  of  agra¬ 
rian  conquest ;  the  British  land  system  was  broken 
down;  territory  to  the  west  was  brought  again 
under  the  control  of  Virginia,  and  virgin  lands 
were  opened  to  settlement.  So  unanimous  was 
the  support  of  the  Revolution  by  the  agricultural 
class  in  Virginia  that  scarcely  a  loyalist  was  to 
be  found  among  the  planters. 

Again,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  agrarian 
class,  especially  the  planters  in  Virginia,  was  hope¬ 
lessly  in  debt  to  British  merchants  and  to  their 
agents  in  the  colony.  For  this  class,  the  war  had 
its  advantages.  Virginia,  as  the  other  colonies, 
began  the  war  with  an  empty  treasury  and  with 
no  established  credit.  The  raising  of  necessary 
revenues  was  a  problem  that  well  might  puzzle  the 
most  astute  financier;  custom  duties  were  impos- 


CONCLUSION 


181 


sible;  direct  taxes  were  certain  to  be  unpopular 
and  might  defeat  the  very  object  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion.  The  agrarian  solution  was  recourse  to  large 
issues  of  paper  money,  followed  by  the  sequestra¬ 
tion  and  sale  of  property  belonging  to  alien  ene¬ 
mies  to  support  the  issues.  The  indebted  planter 
was  permitted  by  Virginia  law  to  discharge  his 
i  debt  to  the  enemy  merchant  by  paying  the  sum 
due  into  the  treasury  of  the  state  in  depreciated 
paper  money.  The  benefits  of  this  policy  to  the 
state  were  small,  but  in  it  were  great  possibilities 
for  the  planters. 

Agrarian  and  commercial  interests  that  had 
united  in  a  common  cause  in  1776  realized  that 
their  interests  were  not  always  in  harmony  when 
America  came  to  make  peace  with  England.  The 
fruits  that  agricultural  Virginia  hoped  to  reap 
from  the  war  of  conquest  were  only  partially  real¬ 
ized.  The  treaty  of  peace  obligated  Great  Britain 
to  surrender  the  coveted  Mississippi  Valley,  but 
already  Virginia  had  ceded  this  territory  to  the 
central  government  to  preserve  unity  among  the 
states.  Virginia  was  not  represented  at  Paris 
during  the  peace  negotiations,  nor  did  any  active 
member  of  the  American  delegation  represent  the 
agrarian  South,  while  the  commercial  interests 
were  strongly  represented  in  Adams,  Jay,  and 
Franklin.  Anticipating  future  commercial  rela- 


182 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


tions,  the  treaty  of  1783  required  American 
debtors  to  pay  debts  due  prior  to  the  war  and 
placed  moral  obligations  upon  the  states  to  re¬ 
store  loyalist  property.  Virginia  was  indignant, 
and,  so  long  as  the  execution  of  the  treaty  de¬ 
pended  upon  the  states,  nothing  was  done  to  ful¬ 
fill  its  provisions.  The  agrarian  class,  in  part, 
opposed  the  creation  of  a  central  government  that 
would  have  absolute  control  of  international  re¬ 
lations;  it  fought  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu-y 
tion  on  the  ground  that  the  new  government,  con¬ 
trolled  by  the  commercial  class,  would  enforce 
those  provisions  in  the  treaty  of  1783  which  were 
unpopular  in  the  agricultural  sections. 

And,  finally,  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  execution  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  coming 
contemporary  with  the  new  financial  policies, 
brought  the  agrarian  and  commercial  classes  face 
to  face.  The  courts  of  the  United  States  forced 
the  planters  to  make  the  long  deferred  settlements 
with  the  British  merchants.  Many  of  the  bank¬ 
rupt  aristocrats  moved  into  the  promising  West, 
carrying  with  them  a  dislike  and  distrust  of 
Federalism.  The  unencumbered  yeomanry  came 
rapidly  to  the  fore  in  Virginia,  and  that  state, 
which  had  been  the  stronghold  of  aristocracy,  be¬ 
came  the  bulwark  of  Republicanism. 


f.  ?  3 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Official  Manuscript  Sources 

Auditor’s  Day  Books.  Virginia  State  Library.  The 
method  of  keeping  the  daily  accounts  was  irregular.  Sev¬ 
eral  of  the  Day  Books  are  marked  Cash  Books;  some  of 
the  daily  entries  are  in  discarded  Ledger  Books.  Where 
the  pages  are  numbered  in  the  Day  Books  the  number  of 
the  page  on  which  the  entry  is  made  is  cited ;  many  pages 
are  not  numbered — here  the  date  of  entry  is  given.  The 
amounts  paid  into  the  auditor’s  office  by  the  escheators 
for  the  sale  of  sequestered  property,  and  the  amount 
paid  into  the  loan  office  to  discharge  debts  due  British 
subjects  are  recorded  in  these  books.  They  have  been  of 
inestimable  value. 

Auditors  Papers  1776-1796.  Virginia  State  Library. 
A  mass  of  classified  and  unclassified  papers,  a  large  part 
of  them  on  military  affairs.  For  the  greater  part  they 
have  been  of  little  value  in  the  preparation  of  this  mono¬ 
graph.  Two  boxes  of  these  papers,  numbers  15  and  16, 
are  reports  on  escheated  property.  Only  the  returns  from 
Norfolk  County  are  complete. 

Colonial  Papers  1755-1776.  Virginia  State  Library.  A 
box  of  papers  containing  the  reports  from  the  military 
authorities  about  Norfolk  in  1775-1776.  These  papers 
are  informing  on  the  early  activities  of  the  loyalist  mer¬ 
chants.  The  reports  are  published,  in  part,  in  Richmond 
College  Historical  Papers,  Vol.  I. 

Council  Journals  1776-1796.  Virginia  State  Library. 
Petitions  and  cases  of  many  loyalists  were  referred  to 
the  Council,  especially  when  the  assembly  was  not  in 
session.  A  study  of  the  Journal  of  the  Council  affords 
excellent  illustrations  of  the  treatment  of  the  loyalists 
by  the  state  authorities. 


184 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Executive  Communications.  Virginia  State  Library. 
Papers  and  documents  sent  from  the  executive  office  to 
individuals,  committees  and  other  departments  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  In  this  collection  are  the  recommendations  of 
the  executive  to  the  assembly,  reports  on  loyalists, 
directions  to  escheators,  and  communications  with  the 
attorney-general. 

Executive  Papers.  Virginia  State  Library.  Papers 
sent  to  the  executive  office.  Reports  of  legislative  com¬ 
mittees,  statements  from  other  departments,  individual 
claims  and  a  few  scattered  petitions. 

Governor’s  Letter  Book.  Virginia  State  Library.  Let¬ 
ters  written  by  the  Governor  in  Council  to  the  assembly, 
to  public  officials  and  to  individuals.  The  original  drafts 
of  many  of  these  letters  are  in  the  Executive  Communi¬ 
cations. 

Papers  of  the  Continental  Congress.  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress.  Volumes  LXXI  and  LXXII  contain  the~-©fficial 
correspondence  of  Virginia  with  the  Continental  Con¬ 
gress.  Volume  XI  includes  the  surviving  intercepted 
loyalist  letters.  The  majority  of  these  letters  were  de¬ 
stroyed  by  the  Post-Office  Department  years  ago. 

Patent  Books.  Virginia  Land  Office.  Records  of  the 
lands  granted  by  the  colony  and  state  of  Virginia.  Deeds 
for  sequestered  estates  sold  by  Virginia  are  recorded  in 
these  books.  Titles  granted  by  the  state,  chiefly  for 
lands  in  the  west,  for  the  period  1778-1796  fill  twenty- 
five  volumes  of  300  to  800  pages  each.  The  estimate  of 
lands  sold  by  Virginia  during  the  Revolution  and  after  is 
based  on  an  examination  of  these  books ;  these  records, 
therefore,  have  been  of  primary  importance  in  preparing 
parts  of  this  monograph. 

Petitions  to  the  Assembly.  Virginia  State  Library. 
Approximately  25,000  petitions  dating  from  1774  to  1850. 
Three  thousand  of  these  petitions  are  dated  in  the  period 
of  this  study  (1776-1796).  The  petitions  are  being  in¬ 
dexed  and  checked  against  the  Journals  of  the  Assembly 
by  Mr.  Morgan  Robinson  and  when  the  indexing  is  com- 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  185 


pleted  they  will  be  an  accessible  source  of  valuable  infor¬ 
mation.  These  petitions  have  been  of  great  assistance  in 
tracing  the  claims  of  loyalists  and  the  origin  of  loyalist 
legislation. 

United  States  Circuit  Court  Records.  United  States 
Government,  Richmond,  Va.  The  records  of  the  federal 
court  fully  attest  the  importance  of  the  British  debt  cases 
in  the  newly  established  federal  courts.  Suits,  a  sum¬ 
mary  of  the  pleadings  and  the  action  of  the  Court  are 
recorded  in  the  case  books,  especially  Books  I  and  II. 
The  court  records  filed  away  in  separate  boxes  furnish 
additional  data  concerning  the  history  of  individual  ac¬ 
counts;  from  these  records  one  can  ascertain  whether  the 
sum  in  question  was  borrowed  to  purchase  a  blooded  race 
horse,  to  pay  the  expenses  of  a  son  attending  school  in 
England,  or  to  provide  silver  for  a  betrothed  daughter. 
These  records  are  an  interesting  and  an  apparently  unex¬ 
plored  source  of  information.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr. 
Stanard  of  the  Virginia  Historical  Society  for  calling 
my  attention  to  them. 

Transcripts  and  Facsimiles 

British  Transcripts.  Library  of  Congress.  JThese 
transcripts,  especially  thoseTronrthe'papers  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,  Colonial  Office  Series,  contain  a  wealth  of 
information  on  the  colonial  and  early  Revolutionary 
period.  The  instructions  to  and  the  reports  from  the 
royal  agents  have  been  used  extensively  for  the  period 
1774-76.  The  British  Government  kept  agents  in  the 
colonies  throughout  the  Revolution,  and  their  reports  are 
valuable. 

Transcripts  of  the  Manuscript  Books  and  Papers  of 
the  Commission  of  Inquiry  into  the  Losses  and  Services 
of  the  American  Loyalists.  New  York  Public  Library. 
Three  volumes  cover  the  inquiry  of  the  British  commis¬ 
sioners  into  the  claims  arising  in  Virginia ;  one  volume  for 
the  proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  at  Halifax,  and 
two  volumes  for  the  London  Commissioners. 


186 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Facsimiles  of  Manuscripts  in  European  Archives  relat¬ 
ing  to  America  1773-1783.  By  B.  F.  Stevens.  25  vol¬ 
umes.  London  1898. 

Official  Printed  Sources 

American  Archives:  Fourth  Series,  containing  a  Docu¬ 
mentary  History  of  the  English  Colonies  in  North 
America  from  the  King’s  Message  to  Parliament  of 
March  7,  1774,  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  of 
the  United  States,  by  Peter  Force.  Washington,  1843. 

Annals  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  Wash¬ 
ington,  1849. 

American  State  Papers,  Part  I,  Foreign  Affairs,  Vol¬ 
umes  I-III.  Washington,  1834. 

A  Calendar  of  the  Virginia  State  Papers  and  other 
Manuscripts  Deposited  in  the  Virginia  Library.  11  Vol¬ 
umes.  Edited  by  W.  P.  Palmer  and  others.  Richmond, 
1889-93.  The  calendar  is  incomplete  and  the  index  is 
poor.  Unfortunately  the  editors  did  not  indicate  in  what 
collection  the  original  manuscript  could  be  found. 

The  Debates  in  the  Several  State  Conventions  on  the 
adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  recommended  by 
the  General  Convention  at  Philadelphia  in  1787  together 
with  the  Journal  of  the  Federal  Convention,  by  Jonathan 
Elliot.  1830. 

Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolu¬ 
tion.  10  Volumes.  Jared  Sparks.  Boston,  1830. 

Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress  1774-1789,  edited 
from  the  Original  Records  in  the  Library  of  Congress, 
by  W.  C.  Ford  et.  al.  25  Volumes,  (1774-1783).  Wash¬ 
ington,  1904-1924. 

Journal  of  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates.  This 
Journal  has  been  consulted  frequently.  With  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  May  session,  1782,  a  complete  set  of  the 
Journals  is  known  to  exist.  The  Journal  for  1796  has 
never  been  printed  but  the  manuscript  is  in  the  Virginia 
State  Library. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  187 


Journal  of  the  Senate  of  Virginia.  Several  of  the 
Journals,  including  May  1780,  May  1781,  October  1781, 
May  1782,  October  1782,  May  1783,  May  1784,  October 

'■  1784  and  October  1785  are  not  known  to  exist. 

Proceedings  of  the  Committees  of  Safety  of  Cumber¬ 
land  and  Isle  of  Wight  Counties,  Virginia,  1775-1776. 
Edited  by  H.  R.  Mcllwaine.  (In  Fifteenth  Annual  Re¬ 
port  of  the  Library  Board  of  the  Virginia  State  Library, 

•  1917-1918).  Richmond. 

Records  of  the  Federal  Convention,  edited  by  Max 

•  Farrand.  3  volumes.  Washington,  1911. 

Report  of  Cases  Argued  and  Adjudged  in  the  Court  of 
Appeals  of  Virginia,  by  Daniel  Call.  6  volumes.  Rich¬ 
mond,  1833. 

Report  of  Cases  Argued  and  Determined  in  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  Virginia,  by  Bushrod  Washington.  2  vol¬ 
umes.  Richmond,  1798-99. 

The  Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the 
United  States,  edited  by  Francis  Wharton  with  a  Pre¬ 
liminary  index  and  notes  Historical  and  Legal.  6  vol¬ 
umes.  Washington,  1889. 

The  Royal  Commission  on  the  Losses  and  Sendees  of 
the  American  Colonists,  1783-1785,  edited  by  H.  E.  Eger- 
ton.  London,  1917. 

The  Statutes  at  Large  being  a  Collection  of  all  the 
Laws  of  Virginia  from  the  First  Session  of  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  in  the  Year  1619,  by  W.  W.  Hening.  13  volumes. 
Richmond,  1823. 

Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia  from  October  Session 
1792  to  December  Session,  1806,  inclusive,  by  Samuel 
Shepherd.  3  volumes.  Richmond,  1835. 

Unofficial  Manuscript 

Jefferson  Papers.  Library  of  Congress.  This  great 
body  of  papers  contains  many  letters  written  to  Jefferson 
by  his  friends  in  Virginia  describing  conditions  and  events, 
local  and  national.  These  letters  have  been  of  great  value 
in  supplementing  material  found  elsewhere. 


188 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Thq  Papers  of  James  Madison.  Library  of  Congress. 
During  the  twenty  years  following  the  Declaration  of  In¬ 
dependence  Madison  was  greatly  interested  in  Virginia 
politics.  When  absent  from  the  state  he  received  letters 
from  friends  in  Virginia  at  regular  intervals.  In  his  wide 
range  of  correspondence  he  frequently  related,  or  had  re¬ 
lated  to  him,  the  drift  in  local  politics,  especially  the  oc¬ 
currences  in  the  Virginia  assembly.  The  writers  usually 
knew  more  than  is  recorded  in  the  Journals  of  the  assem¬ 
bly,  and  often  they  gave  interesting  information.  Madison 
was  interested  in  the  legal  and  constitutional  phases  of 
sequestration. 

The  Letters  of  James  Monroe.  Library  of  Congress. 
Monroe’s  letters  are  not  as  rich  in  information,  nor  as 
bulky  in  volume  for  the  period  as  are  those  of  Jefferson 
and  Madison.  The  letters  which  passed  between  Monroe, 
Madison  and  Jefferson  have  been  the  most  helpful. 

Unofficial  Printed  Collections 

The  John  P.  Branch  Historical  Papers  of  Randolph 
Macon  College,  Edited  by  W.  E.  Dodd.  Volume  I.  1901. 

Documentary  History  of  Dunmorc’s  War  1774.  Edited 
by  R.  G.  Thwaites  and  L.  P.  Kellogg.  Madison,  1905. 

The  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin  inserting  the  Private 
as  well  as  Official  and  Scientific  Correspondence  together 
with  the  unmutilated  and  correct  version  of  the  Auto¬ 
biography.  Complied  and  edited  by  John  Bigelow.  12 
volumes.  (Federal  Edition)  New  York,  1904. 

Correspondence  and  Public  Papers  of  John  Jay,  1763- 
1829,  edited  by  Henry  Phelps  Johnston.  4  Volumes,  n.d. 

The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  collected  and  edited 
by  Paul  L.  Ford.  10  Volumes.  1892-1899.  New  York. 

The  Writings  of  James  Madison,  comprising  his  Public 
Papers  and  Private  Correspondence,  including  numerous 
Letters  and  Documents  now  for  the  First  Time  Printed. 
Edited  by  Gaillard  Hunt.  9  Volumes.  1900-1910. 

The  Revolution  on  the  Upper  Ohio,  1775-1777 .  Edited 
by  R.  G.  Thwaites  and  L.  P.  Kellogg.  Madison,  1908. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  189 


Newspapers 

The  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser.  Richmond, 
Virginia. 

The  South  Carolina  Gazette.  Charleston,  South  Caro¬ 
lina. 

The  Virginia  Sentinel  and  Gazette.  Williamsburg  and 
Richmond,  Va. 

Pamphlets 

The  Case  of  the  American  Loyalists  Impartially  Stated 
and  Considered.  London,  1783. 

Considerations  of  the  Present  State  of  Virginia,  attri¬ 
buted  to  John  Randolph,  Attorney-General,  and  Consider¬ 
ation  of  the  Present  State  of  Virginia  Examined  by 
Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  1774.  Reprinted  and  edited  by 
Earl  G.  Swem  (Virginia  State  Library  Bulletin,  1919.) 

Observation  on  the  Fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  with 
America;  and  on  the  necessity  of  appointing  a  Judicial 
Enquiry  into  the  Merits  and  Losses  of  the  American  Loy¬ 
alists.  Printed  by  Order  of  their  Agents.  1783.  At¬ 
tributed  to  Joseph  Galloway. 

Opinions  on  the  Sixth  Article  of  the  Treaty  with  Great 
Britain  by  T.  MacDonald.  (About  1784). 

Reasons  why  no  Deductions  ought  to  be  made  from  the 
Amount  of  the  Sum's  due  to  the  American  Loyalists  by 
the  Commission  of  American  Claims.  By  the  Agents. 
(About  1791). 

Periodicals 

Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.  47 
Volumes.  Philadelphia. 

Tyler’s  Quarterly  Historical  and  Genealogical  Maga¬ 
zine.  5  volumes.  Richmond. 

Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.  30 
Volumes.  Richmond. 

William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly.  27  Volumes. 
Richmond. 

Special  Monographs 

Broome,  E.  C.  Northern  Neck  Lands.  (Fauquier 
Historical  Society  Bulletin,  No.  I). 


190 


LOYALISM  IN  VIRGINIA 


Eckenrode,  H.  J.  Separation  of  Church  and  State  in 
Virginia.  A  Study  in  the  Development  of  the  Revolution. 
(Sixth  Annual  Report  of  the  Library  Board  of  Virginia 
State  Library.) 

George,  J.  A.  Virginia  Loyalists  1775-1783.  (Rich¬ 
mond  College  Historical  Papers,  Volume  I.) 

Harrison,  Fairfax.  The  Bristow  Estate  and  Brent 
Town.  (Tyler’s  Quarterly,  Volume  IV,  No.  1.) 

Jones,  E.  A.  The  Journal  of  Alexander  Cliesney,  a 
South  Carolina  Loyalist  in  the  Revolution  and  After. 
(Ohio  State  University  Bulletin,  Volume  XXVI,  No.  4.) 

Lingley,  C.  R.  Transition  in  Virginia  from  Colony  to 
Commonwealth.  (Columbia  University  Studies,  Volume 
XXXVI,  No.  2.) 

McIlwaine,  H.  R.  The  Struggle  of  Protestant  Dis¬ 
senters  for  Religious  Toleration  in  Virginia.  (John  Hop¬ 
kins  University  Studies,  Series  XII,  No.  4.) 

Ripley,  W.  Z.  The  Financial  History  of  Virginia. 
1893. 

Siebert,  W.  H.  The  Loyalists  of  Pennsylvania.  (Ohio 
State  University  Bulletin,  Volume  XXIV,  No.  23.) 

Thom,  W.  T.  The  Struggle  for  Religious  Freedom  in 
Virginia:  The  Baptists.  (Johns  Hopkins  University 
Studies,  Series  XVIII,  Nos.  10-12.) 

Thomas,  B.  S.  The  Loyalty  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  Virginia.  Richmond,  1907.  (Pamphlet,  22  pages.) 

Other  Secondary  Works 

Alvord,  C.  W.  Mississippi  Valley  in  British  Politics. 
2  Volumes,  1917. 

Beard,  C.  A.  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States.  1913. 

Beard,  C.  A.  Economic  Origins  of  Jeffersonian  De¬ 
mocracy.  1915. 

Bemis,  S.  F.  Jay’s  Treaty,  a  Study  in  Commerce  and 
Diplomacy.  1923. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  191 


Beveridge,  A.  J.  Life  of  John  Marshall.  4  Volumes. 
1916-19. 


Conway,  M.  D.  Omitted  Chapters  of  History  dis¬ 
closed  in  the  Life  and  Papers  of  Edmund  Randolph. 


Second  Edition.  1889. 

Eckenrode,  H.  J.  The  Revolution  in  Virginia.  1916. 
Flippin,  P.  S.  The  Royal  Government  in  Virginia 
1624-1776.  (Columbia  University  Studies,  Volume 
LXXXIV,  No.  1).  1919. 

Ford,  P.  L.  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Jones. 


;  1892. 


Henry,  W.  W.  Patrick  Henry,  Life,  Correspondence 
and  Speeches.  3  volumes.  1891. 

McRee,  G.  J.  Life  and  Correspondence  of  James  Ire¬ 
dell.  2  volumes.  1857-58. 

Mordecai,  Samuel.  Richmond  in  By-gone  Days: 
being  Reminiscences  of  an  old  Citizen.  1856. 

Rowland,  K.  M.  George  Mason,  Life  Correspondence 
and  Speeches  1725-1792.  2  volumes.  1892. 

Sabine,  Lorenzo.  Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolu¬ 
tion.  2  volumes.  1852. 

Schlesinger,  A.  M.  Colonial  Merchants  and  the 
American  Revolution.  1917. 

Tyler,  M.  C.  Patrick  Henry.  1888. 

Van  Tyne,  C.  H.  The  Loyalists  in  the  American 
Revolution.  1902. 


INDEX 


Accomac,  draft  riots  in,  60. 

Agnew,  John,  loyalist,  49;  64; 
property  sold,  97n. 

Albemarle,  taxes  in  arrears, 
121n. ;  petition  assembly  for 
paper  money,  152. 

Albion,  takes  loyalists  to  Eng¬ 
land,  48 ;  77. 

Alexandria,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  97. 

Allmand,  Thomas,  purchases 
confiscated  property,  98. 

Ambler,  John,  on  currency,  122. 

Amherst,  sales  of  confiscated 
property,  95. 

Andrews,  William,  leaves  Vir¬ 
ginia,  64. 

Anglican  clergy,  participation 
in  Revolution,  63-64. 

Applewhite,  Thomas,  property 
sold,  97n. 

Auditor’s  books,  7 ;  94 ;  183. 

Augusta,  taxes  in  arrears,  121n. 

Baine,  Edward,  property  re¬ 
stored,  102. 

Ballatine,  John,  property  sold, 
97n. 

Banister,  John,  on  return  of 
British  merchants,  142. 

Banks,  Henry,  land  speculation, 
122n. 

Bannerman,  Benjamin,  property 
sold,  97n. 

Baptist,  participation  in  Revo¬ 
lution,  64. 

Baxter,  Carter,  land  speculation, 
122n. 

Baylor,  John,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly,  90. 

Beal,  Samuel,  land  speculation, 
122n. 


Bedford,  prisoners  in,  53 ;  fear 
of  draft  riots  in,  61 ;  taxes 
in  arrears,  121n. 

Berkeley,  petition  to  assembly 
against  British  merchants, 
83;  commissioners  sell  Lord 
Dunmore’s  property,  85n. ;  in¬ 
quest  over  property,  108; 
resolutions  on  Treaty  of 
Paris,  133. 

Blanford,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  97. 

Bonetta,  takes  loyalists  to  New 
York,  55. 

Booth,  George,  in  convention 
1775,  36. 

Boston  Port  Bill,  in  Virginia, 
31. 

Boucher,  Jonathan,  leaves  Vir¬ 
ginia,  64. 

Bowers,  John,  on  Dunmore’s 
War,  15n. 

Bowman  and  Spiers,  sue  for 
debts,  162. 

Bowness,  George  and  John, 
property  sold,  97n. 

Brent,  William,  debts,  28. 

Bristow,  Robert,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  100. 

Brooke,  Robert,  attorney-gen¬ 
eral,  108. 

Brown,  John,  property  sold, 
97n. 

Bruce,  John,  leaves  Virginia, 
64. 

Bruce,  Philip,  patriot,  65. 

Buchanan  and  Hastie,  sue  for 
debts,  162. 

Buchanan,  James,  property 
seized,  102. 

Buckingham,  taxes  in  arrears, 

120. 


194 


INDEX 


Burnley,  Hardin,  merchant, 
123 ;  interest  in  debt  cases, 
167n. 

Calderhead,  William,  loyalist, 
58 ;  123. 

Calvert,  James  Campbell,  prop¬ 
erty  sold,  97n. 

Camm,  John,  loyalist,  63. 

Campbell,  Alexander,  attorney, 
164. 

Campbell,  James,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Campbell,  John,  and  Connolly 
lands,  100 ;  address  to  Lord 
Dunmore,  36. 

Cannon,  John,  address  to  Lord 
Dunmore,  36. 

Caroline,  petition  to  assembly 
against  confiscation,  91 ;  reso¬ 
lutions  against  loyalists,  134- 
135  ;  British  merchants  threat¬ 
ened,  141. 

Carrington,  Paul,  debts,  81 ; 
judge  in  British  debt  cases, 
175. 

Carter,  Landon,  on  Revolution 
in  Virginia,  6-7 ;  on  Dun- 
more’s  War,  15n;  on  Lord 
Dunmore,  43 ;  on  local  com¬ 
mittees,  46. 

Cary,  Archibald,  debts,  27. 

Cary,  Wilson  Miles,  petition  to 
assembly  to  refund  sequester¬ 
ed  debts,  171. 

Chisholm,  William,  property 
sold,  97n. 

Christian,  William,  land  claims, 

22. 

Clark,  George  Rogers,  con¬ 
quest  of  Northwest,  20. 

Claypole,  John,  leads  riot,  60. 

Coleman,  David,  and  oath  of 
allegiance,  74. 

Collins,  Henry,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  99. 

Colston,  Rawleigh,  purchases 
Fairfax  title,  110. 


Confiscated  property,  process  of  < 
confiscation,  87  ;  88n. ;  records 
concerning,  93-94;  sales,  95- 
98 ;  used  by  the  state,  99 ;  do¬ 
nated  to  schools,  99 ;  restored, 
100;  claims  against,  102;  con¬ 
fiscation  law  suspended,  102; 
used  to  redeem  military  cer¬ 
tificates,  103 ;  108. 

Connell,  James,  property  re¬ 
stored,  102. 

Connolly,  John,  land  grant  to, 
11;  at  Fort  Pitt,  35;  the 
“Connolly  Plot”,  37 ;  visit  to 
General  Gage,  37 ;  commis¬ 
sioned  by  Lord  Dunmore,  40 ; 
captured,  42 ;  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  100. 

Constitution  (United  States) 
and  debts,  156 ;  opposition  to  < 
in  Virginia,  157 ;  160 ;  before 
Virginia  convention,  158-160; 
amendments  proposed,  160. 

Constitutional  controversy,  in 
Revolution,  4-7. 

Continental  Congress,  and  con¬ 
quest  of  Northwest,  20 ;  op¬ 
position  to  Virginia  land 
policy,  21 ;  legislation  against 
loyalists,  66-69 ;  recommends 
confiscation,  88n. ;  and  paper 
currency,  116. 

Corbin,  Garvin,  loyalist,  63. 

Corbin,  George,  county  lieu¬ 
tenant,  60. 

Corbin,  Richard,  loyalist,  49; 
63. 

Cornwallis,  Lord,  and  Virginia 
loyalists,  54-55. 

Courts,  in  Virginia  after  Revo¬ 
lution,  154;  provisions  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  constitution,  155;  and 
debts,  173-176;  see  debts. 

Cox,  John,  loyalist,  57. 

Crammond,  John,  property  sold, 
97n. 

Crawford,  French,  property  se¬ 
questered,  99. 


INDEX  195 


Crawford,  William,  land  claims, 

11. 

Cropper,  John,  on  depreciation 
of  currency,  115. 

Cruden,  Alexander,  leaves  Vir¬ 
ginia,  64. 

Cunningham  and  Company, 
agent  in  Virginia  throughout 
the  Revolution,  49;  property 
confiscated,  95n. ;  98 ;  prop¬ 
erty  sold,  97 ;  building  of 
used  for  meeting  of  assembly, 
99;  sue  for  debts,  162. 

Currency,  issue  of  paper  in 
Seven  Years  War,  23;  de¬ 
mand  for  paper  in  1765,  24 ; 
gold  shipped  to  Europe,  25 ; 
issue  of  paper  in  Revolution, 
113;  87n. ;  depreciation  of 
paper,  82;  114;  pgpep-ce^ses 
to  circulate^  115;  papsr 
funded,  118;  effect  of  con¬ 
traction,' 119-122 ;  demand  for 
paper  1786,  151 ;  see  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress. 

Custom  duties,  amount  col¬ 
lected  in  Virginia,  23. 

Jf  V  «:^3SSg! 

Dar/ihouth,  Lord,  on  western 
landfi,  10;  12;  16;  on  Dun- 
more\  War  15n. 

Davidson\James,  property  con/ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Debts,  British,  due  from  plant¬ 
ers,  26-28 ;  >23j  128»f;  se¬ 
questered,  80 ;  payments 
under  sequestration  law,  81- 
84;  attempts  to  collect  after 
Revolution,  123-127;  136-138; 
141 ;  143-151 ;  and  Treaty  of 
Paris,  129-133 ;  and  federal 
Constitution,  157-161 ;  Vir¬ 
ginia  petitions  Congress 
against  collection,  163  ;  169 ; 
cases  in  federal  courts,  162- 
171 ;  cases  in  Virginia  courts, 
173-176;  and  Jay’s  Treaty, 
177-178;  significance  of  col¬ 


lection,  176;  182;  see  “stay 
laws”;  Treaty  of  Paris. 

Dinwiddie,  Governor,  on  lands 
in  Virginia,  8. 

Dinwiddie  and  Company,  prop¬ 
erty  confiscated,  95n. 

Dissenters,  number,  4. 

Dobney,  Colonel,  suppresses  loy¬ 
alists,  57. 

Dobson  and  Dalteria,  sue  for 
debts,  162. 

Donald,  Robert,  sues  for  debts, 
162. 

Donaldson  and  Company,  sue 
for  debts,  162. 

Donelson,  Isaac,  loyalist,  59. 

Draft,  riots  against,  60-61. 

Draper,  Lyman,  on  Dunmore’s 
War,  15n. 

Duncan,  Charles,  merchant,  75. 

Dunmore,  Lord,  on  collection 
of  quitrents,  8;  on  bounty 
lands,  11;  on  western  prob¬ 
lem,  12n. ;  Dunmore’s  War, 
13-15;  17;  and  land  specula¬ 
tion,  14;  and  land  grants,  17 ; 
and  Illinois  Company,  14;  16; 
and  Richard  Henderson,  19 ; 
as  governor,  30;  takes  refuge 
on  British  ship,  32;  and 
“Connolly  Plot”,  37-42 ; 
treatment  of  loyalists,  44 ; 
49;  at  Charleston,  52;  prop¬ 
erty  sold,  85. 

Dunn,  James,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Duval,  William,  on  price  of 
lands,  121. 

Dye,  Fauntleroy,  arrested,  53. 

Eckenrode,  H.  J.,  on  Revolu¬ 
tion  in  Virginia,  5  ;  8 ;  28n. 

Elizabeth  City,  loyalism  in,  54. 

Essex,  petition  on  British  debts, 
130;  resolutions  on  Treaty  of 
Paris,  132;  loyalist  mobbed  in, 
137. 


196 


INDEX 


Ewing,  John,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Fairfax  (county),  inquest  over 
property,  108. 

Fairfax  estate,  inquest  ordered, 
90;  history,  103;  sequestered, 
104;  quitrents  abolished,  104; 
title  in  dispute,  105-108 ;  in¬ 
quest,  108-109;  title  of  set¬ 
tlers  on,  109;  sold  to  land 
syndicate,  110;  compromise 
of  1796,  110;  in  United 

States  courts,  111. 

Farrar,  Thomas,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Farrar,  William,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Fauquier,  inquest  over  prop¬ 
erty,  108 ;  109. 

Finance,  as  cause  of  Revolution 
in  Virginia,  22-25 ;  and  con¬ 
fiscation,  78-81 ;  during  Revo¬ 
lution,  87n. ;  113-116;  see 

confiscation. 

Fisher,  John,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly  for  oath  of  allegiance, 
91. 

Flibeck,  Jonathan,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Fluvanna,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  95. 

Fort  Detroit,  British  garrison, 
43. 

Fort  Pitt,  loyalism  at,  33 ;  35 ; 
52. 

Frazer,  Simon,  loyalist,  53. 

Frederick,  petition  to  assembly 
against  British  merchants,  83; 
inquest  over  property  in,  108; 
109 ;  petition  on  British  debts, 
130. 

Galt,  Gabriel,  loyalist,  57. 

Gatewood,  William,  indicted 
for  attack  on  loyalist,  137. 

Gibson,  George,  address  to  Lord 
Dunmore,  36. 


Giles,  William  B.,  attorney,  173. 

Gilmore,  Robert,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Girty,  Simon,  address  to  Lord 
Dunmore,  36. 

Gist,  Samuel,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  101. 

Glen  and  Peter  vs.  Cocke,  bond 
sufficient  evidence  of  debt, 
175. 

Gloucester,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  95 ;  taxes  in  ar¬ 
rears,  121n. 

Godfrey,  Matthew,  escheator  in 
Norfolk,  95. 

Godwin,  Christopher,  petition 
to  assembly  for  restoration  of 
property,  100. 

Goodall,  Richard,  property  re¬ 
stored,  101. 

Goodrich,  John,  arrested,  46; 
property  confiscated,  97n ; 
claims  against,  102. 

Gordon,  Alexander,  resigns 
parish,  64. 

Gosport,  Lord  Dunmore  at,  32; 
property  destroyed,  45. 

Grayson,  William,  and  com¬ 
plaints  of  British  merchants 
against  Virginia,  148-149. 

Great  Bridge,  battle  at,  41. 

Greenbriar,  courts  threatened, 
152. 

Greenwood,  John,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Grymes,  Phillip,  loyalist,  53. 

Halifax,  resolutions  on  British 
debts,  129;  130;  instructions 
to  delegates  on  Treaty  of 
Paris,  132. 

Hamilton,  John,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  100. 

Hampden  and  Sidney  College, 
receives  confiscated  property, 
100. 

Hampshire,  draft  riots  in,  60. 


INDEX  197 


Hampton,  petition  to  assembly 
for  sale  of  British  property, 
86. 

Hanbury,  Osgood,  debts  due 
from  Virginia,  27 ;  property 
at  Hampton,  86 ;  sues  for 
debts,  162. 

Hanover,  petition  against  re¬ 
turning  loyalists,  131. 

Hardy,  John,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Hardy,  Thomas,  escheator  in 
Isle  of  Wight,  95. 

Harmer,  John,  property  se¬ 
questered,  101. 

Harrison,  Benjamin,  debts,  27; 
on  return  of  British  mer¬ 
chants,  125-126;  138. 

Harrison,  Burr,  debts,  27. 

Harrison,  William,  debts,  28. 

Henderson,  Richard,  and  Pat- 
trick  Henry,  10;  outlawed  by 
Lord  Dunmore,  19;  plans 
checked  by  Virginia,  20. 

Henrico,  property  sold,  98;  pe¬ 
tition  against  returning  loy¬ 
alists,  131. 

Henry,  citizens  take  oath  of 
allegiance,  73 ;  taxes  in  ar¬ 
rears,  121n. 

Henry,  Patrick,  on  price  of 
western  land,  9 ;  and  Vir¬ 
ginia  claims  to  western  lands, 
9;  land  speculation,  13;  21; 
and  conquest  of  Northwest, 
20;  debts,  27;  on  return  of 
British,  139;  143;  on  British 
debts,  145-147 ;  no  faith  in 
Congress,  150;  advocates 
paper  money,  152 ;  on  federal 
Constitution,  158;  attorney 
in  Ware  vs.  Hylton,  167 ;  at¬ 
torney  in  Jones  vs.  Walker, 
164-166. 

Heth,  William,  on  return  of 
loyalists,  134;  142. 

Hodges,  James,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 


Hodges,  Joshua,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Hogg,  Peter,  on  public  credit, 
115. 

Hogg,  Richard,  loyalist,  57. 

Holland,  John,  loyalist,  59. 

Hunter,  Banks  and  Company, 
land  speculation,  122n. 

Hunter  and  Blair,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  95n. 

Hurt,  Mary,  claims  against 
John  Bowness,  102. 

Hylton,  Daniel,  sued  for  debt, 
167 ;  petition  to  assembly  to 
refund  sequestered  debts,  171. 

Hyndman,  John,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  95n. 

Innes,  Hugh,  land  speculation, 
13 ;  22. 

Innes,  James,  attorney,  164. 

Iredell,  James,  judge  in  debt 
cases,  168;  170. 

Isle  of  Wight,  sale  of  confis¬ 
cated  property,  95 ;  98. 

Jackson,  Basil,  arrested,  58. 

James  City,  loyalism  in,  54. 

Jamieson,  Neil,  house  burned 
by  General  Lee,  47 ;  before 
assembly,  47;  in  New  York, 
48 ;  property  confiscated,  97n. 

Jay,  John,  report  on  execution 
of  Treaty  of  Paris,  150;  and 
treaty  obligations,  161 ;  judge 
in  debt  cases,  168-170;  Jay’s 
Treaty  and  debts,  176. 

Jefferson,  Peter,  land  specula¬ 
tion,  13. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  British 
land  policy,  18 ;  drafts  Vir¬ 
ginia  land  law,  21 ;  estimate 
of  debts  due  from  Virginia, 
26 ;  123 ;  debts,  27 ;  84 ;  and  in¬ 
structions  to  peace  commis¬ 
sioners  on  British  debts, 
127n. ;  sued  for  debt,  162; 
drafts  confiscation  act,  87 ; 
expects  difficulties  over  con- 


198 


INDEX 


fiscation,  92 ;  minister  to 
France  ,  128;  estimate  of 
Negroes  carried  away  by 
British,  145n. ;  consults  with 
British  merchants,  149 ;  on 
Jones  vs.  Walker,  166n. 

Johnson,  William,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Johnston,  Andrew,  merchant, 
136. 

Jones  and  Farrell,  debts  due 
from  Virginia,  27;  debts  se¬ 
questered,  163 ;  sue  for  debts, 
162;  163;  167. 

Jones,  Joseph,  debts,  28;  esti¬ 
mate  of  British  debts,  128n. ; 
and  return  of  loyalists,  142 ; 
petition  to  assembly  to  refund 
sequestered  debts,  171. 

Jones  vs.  Walker,  no  decision 
on  British  debts,  163-167. 

Jordome,  Sarah,  petition  to 
assembly  to  exempt  estate 
from  confiscation,  91. 

Kempsville,  British  success  at, 
39. 

Kerr,  John,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  101 ;  threatened,  141. 

King,  Walter,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  101. 

Kippin  and  Company,  debts  due 
from  Virginia,  27 ;  unable  to 
collect  debts,  151 ;  sue  for 
debts,  162. 

Knight,  Benjamin,  property 
confiscated,  97n. 

Lancaster,  draft  riots  in,  61 ; 
sale  of  confiscated  property, 
95. 

Land,  records,  7 ;  93  ;  184 ;  de¬ 
mand  for  more,  7-8 ;  price, 
8-9;  grants  1772-1774,  9; 

bounties,  11;  restrictive  col¬ 
onial  policy,  11;  16;  as  cause 
of  Dunmore’s  War,  13-15; 
new  provisions  for  granting 


in  1774,  18;  as  cause  of 
Revolution,  19 ;  seized  by 
Virginia  in  Revolution,  19- 
20;  terms  granted  by  Vir¬ 
ginia,  20-21 ;  Virginia  grants 
1779-1782,  22 ;  revenue  from, 
87n. ;  military  grants,  122n. ; 
significance,  112;  179-180; 

see  confiscated  property. 

Laws,  suspended  by  colonial 
governors,  4. 

Lee,  Arthur,  and  western  lands, 
9. 

Lee,  Henry,  land  speculation, 
21 ;  purchases  confiscated 
property,  97 ;  purchases  Fair¬ 
fax  title,  110. 

Lee,  Richard  Evers,  claims 
against  Sprowle  estate,  102. 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  reports 
loyalist,  53 ;  in  Congress,  66 ; 
and  British  debts,  139n. 

Lewis,  Andrew,  on  Dunmore’s 
War,  15n. ;  land  speculation, 
22.  " 

Lidderdale,  Archibald,  debts  due 
from  Virginia,  27. 

Literary  Fund,  receives  confis¬ 
cated  property,  100. 

Loudoun,  inhabitants  protest 
against  confiscation,  91. 

Louisa  Company,  offer  to  make 
Patrick  Henry  a  member,  10. 

Louisa,  property  sold  for  taxes, 

121. 

Loyalists,  excluded  from  elec¬ 
tion  1775,  32;  in  Norfolk,  33- 
35;  at  Fort  Pitt,  35-37;  43; 
at  Kempsville,  39;  treatment 
by  Lord  Dunmore,  44-45 ; 
suppressed,  46-48 ;  leave  Vir¬ 
ginia,  48 ;  in  military  service, 
48-49;  on  frontier,  50-51;  in 
Bedford,  53 ;  in  Middlesex, 
53;  at  Yorktown,  54-55; 
treatment  after  war,  57-59; 
number  in  Virginia,  62; 
claims  filed  with  British 


INDEX 


199 


commission,  62-63 ;  in  Ang¬ 
lican  ministry,  63 ;  among  of¬ 
ficials,  63 ;  legislation  against 
by  Congress,  66-69 ;  property 
sequestered,  70-71 ;  oath  of 
allegiance  tended,  73-74 ; 
property  confiscated,  87 ;  pe¬ 
titions  to  assembly,  90-91 ; 
property  sold,  93-99 ;  property 
used  by  public,  99-100;  prop¬ 
erty  restored,  100-102;  re¬ 
turn  after  Revolution,  123 ; 
and  Treaty  of  Paris,  130;  agi¬ 
tation  against  1783-1784,  134; 
driven  from  Virginia,  140; 
some  permitted  to  return, 
140;  see  merchants. 

Loyall,  Paul,  purchases  confis¬ 
cated  property,  97. 

Lunenburg,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  98 ;  taxes  in  arrears, 
121n. 

Lynch,  Captain,  suppresses  loy¬ 
alists,  52. 

Lyne,  John,  land  speculation, 
122n. 

Lynn,  Andrew,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  95n. 

Lynn,  John,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  95n. 

Lyons,  John,  loyalist,  54;  64. 

Mackie,  Andrew,  purchases 
confiscated  property,  98. 

Madison,  James,  on  execution 
of  Treaty  of  Paris,  144-145; 
on  debts,  148;  on  treaties  as 
supreme  law,  1 53n. ;  on  rati¬ 
fication  of  Constitution,  158; 
161. 

Madison,  Thomas,  land  specu¬ 
lation,  21. 

Manchester,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  97 ;  members  of 
assembly  visit,  147. 

Marshall,  James,  purchases 
Fairfax  title,  110. 


Marshall,  John,  purchases  Fair¬ 
fax  title,  110;  on  federal 
Constitution,  159;  attorney, 
164. 

Mason,  George,  and  western 
lands,  9 ;  and  loyalists,  72 ; 
and  British  merchants,  75; 
and  British  debts,  130;  139n. ; 
144 ;  on  federal  Constitution, 
158-159. 

Maxwell,  James,  claims  against 
Sprowle  estate,  102. 

McAllester,  Hector,  merchant, 
123. 

McCall,  Archibald,  petition  to 
assembly,  90. 

McDowell,  James,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  99. 

McHarg,  Ebenezer,  petition  to 
assembly,  91. 

McKee,  Alexander,  address  to 
Lord  Dunmore,  36 ;  and 
“Connolly  Plot”,  43 ;  loyal¬ 
ist,  52;  property  confiscated, 
99. 

McKenzie,  Robert,  property 
confiscated,  99. 

McKnight,  Thomas,  property 
confiscated,  97n. 

McLean,  John,  merchant,  123. 

Mecklenburg,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly  against  British  Mer¬ 
chants,  78 ;  79 ;  sale  of  con¬ 
fiscated  property,  95 ;  98 ; 

property  seized  for  taxes,  120. 

Mercer,  Hugh,  land  specula¬ 
tion,  22. 

Merchants,  British,  and  London 
exchange,  25 ;  debts  due  from 
planters,  26-28 ;  123 ;  128n. ; 
in  Norfolk,  33 ;  interest  in 
Revolution,  33 ;  loyalists,  62- 
63 ;  74 ;  legislation  against,  74- 
77 ;  driven  from  Virginia,  76- 
78 ;  and  paper  currency,  79 ; 
return  after  Revolution,  123- 
127;  in  Petersburg,  136;  agi¬ 
tation  against,  134-140;  per- 


200 


INDEX 


mitted  to  return,  140;  treat¬ 
ment  of  those  returning,  140- 
141 ;  citizenship  of  restricted, 
143;  in  Virginia  courts,  144; 
petition  assembly  for  payment 
of  debts,  146 ;  complain  of 
ill  treatment,  148-150;  in 
federal  courts,  161-171 ;  in 
state  courts,  173-176;  and 
Jay’s  Treaty,  177-178;  see 
debts ;  confiscated  property. 

Methodist,  participation  in 
Revolution,  65. 

Middlesex,  loyalism  in,  53. 

Military  certificates,  specula¬ 
tion  in,  122. 

Miller,  James,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Miller,  Simon,  and  oath  of  al¬ 
legiance,  74. 

Mills,  John,  property  seized, 

102. 

Milner,  Thomas,  merchant,  123. 

Mississippi  Land  Company,  and 
Virginia  claims,  9. 

Mitchell  vs.  Waller,  Virginia 
law  set  aside,  173. 

Monroe,  James,  United  States 
Senator,  169;  attorney,  173. 

Morgan,  Willoughby,  property 
confiscated,  97n. 

Muhlenburg,  Peter,  major  gen¬ 
eral,  63. 

Nansemond.  King’s  standard 
raised,  39;  loyalism  in,  54; 
loyalists  convicted,  59;  sale  of 
confiscated  property,  98. 

Navy,  Virginia  navy  in  Revo¬ 
lution,  69n. 

Nelson,  Thomas,  in  assembly, 
92. 

Nester,  Richard,  purchases  con¬ 
fiscated  property,  98. 

Nevill,  John,  on  loyalism  at 
Fort  Pitt,  43. 

Newton,  Thomas,  on  loyalists, 
56. 


Nicholas,  Robert  Carter,  colon¬ 
ial  treasurer,  25;  on  Boston 
Port  Bill,  31 ;  on  Lord  Dun- 
more,  41 ;  44. 

Ninzies,  Ninan,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  99. 

Norfolk,  loyalism  in,  33-35;  38; 
54;  56;  57;  destroyed,  42; 
trial  of  loyalists,  59;  citizens 
take  oath  of  allegiance,  70; 
sale  of  confiscated  property, 
95-97. 

Northampton,  riots  in,  61. 

Northumberland,  taxes  in  ar¬ 
rears,  121n. ;  resolutions  on 
Treaty  of  Paris,  134. 

Norton,  J.  H.,  complaints 
against  Virginia  debtors,  148. 

Orange,  William,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Oswald  and  Company,  property 
confiscated,  95n. 

Page,  Carter,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly  to  refund  sequestered 
debts,  171. 

Page  vs.  Pendleton,  opinion  of 
Judge  Wythe,  174. 

Paradise,  Lucy  and  John,  peti¬ 
tion  to  assembly  against  con¬ 
fiscation,  90. 

Parker,  Josiah,  on  Methodist 
in  Revolution,  65. 

Parker,  Richard,  reports  loyal¬ 
ist,  52-53. 

Pendleton,  Edmund,  debts,  27 ; 
on  Lord  Dunmore,  44;  judge 
in  debt  cases,  175. 

Perdue,  George,  merchant,  34. 

Petersburg,  loyalism  in,  50; 
sale  of  confiscated  property, 
97 ;  British  merchants  return 
to,  136;  British  merchants 
threatened,  141;  142;  local 
merchants  petition  assembly 
on  debts,  146. 

Peyton,  Craven,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly  on  Fairfax  estate,  91. 


INDEX 


201 


Planters,  political  theories 
among,  5-6;  desire  for  land, 
7 ;  fear  Virginia  will  lose 
land  claims,  10;  19;  debts  due 
to  merchants,  26-28;  purchase 
heavily  in  England,  24 ;  see 
merchants;  debts;  land. 

Population,  rapid  growth  in 
Virginia,  8. 

Portsmouth,  loyalists  threat¬ 
ened  at,  141. 

Powell,  Levin,  land  specula¬ 
tion,  21 ;  treatment  of  loyal¬ 
ists,  44. 

Powhatan,  property  seized  for 
taxes,  120;  taxes  in  arrears, 
121n. 

Preston,  William,  on  Dun- 
more’s  War,  15n. 

Previt,  Joseph,  petition  to  as¬ 
sembly  to  refund  sequestered 
debts,  171. 

Prices,  land,  8;  18;  21;  121; 
commodities,  115;  126. 

Prince  Edward,  demand  for 
paper  money  in,  152. 

Princess  Anne,  King’s  standard 
raised,  39;  loyalism  in,  40; 
54;  56;  loyalism  suppressed, 
57;  trial  of  loyalists,  59; 
property  seized  for  taxes,  120. 

Prince  William,  confiscated 
property  sold,  98. 

Proclamation  of  1763,  and 
bounty  lands,  11;  restrictive 
policy,  17. 

Purdie,  Alexander,  patriot,  63. 

Quitrents,  Dunmore  on  collec¬ 
tion  of,  8 ;  rates  doubled  in 
Virginia,  18;  abolished,  21; 
amount  collected,  23 ;  seques¬ 
tered  on  Fairfax  estate,  104 ; 
abolished  on  Fairfax  estate, 
104. 

Ramsey,  Elizabeth,  petition  to 
assembly  against  confiscation, 
91. 


Randolph,  Edmund,  patriot,  63  ; 
treaties  paramount  law,  156; 
member  of  assembly,  157 ; 
on  British  debts,  159;  attor¬ 
ney  general,  169. 

Randolph,  John,  loyalist,  63. 

Randolph,  John,  debts,  161. 

Randolph,  Ryland,  debts,  28. 

Rankin,  William,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Reid,  Thomas,  merchant,  77. 

Richmond,  merchants  in,  75; 
confiscated  property  at  used 
by  state,  99;  little  specie  in, 
122;  local  merchants  petition 
assembly,  146;  circuit  court 
at,  163. 

Riddle,  James,  merchant,  123. 

Ritchie,  Archibald,  before  as¬ 
sembly,  47 ;  loyalist,  49 ;  53. 

Roane,  Spencer,  in  assembly, 
137. 

Robinson,  John,  defaulter,  24. 

Rockingham,  taxes  in  arrears, 
121n. 

Ross,  Alexander,  address  to 
Lord  Dunmore,  36 ;  loyalist, 
52;  land  speculation,  122n. 

Ross,  David,  petition  to  assem¬ 
bly  for  oath  of  allegiance,  91. 

Rowland,  Zachariah,  loyalist, 
57. 

Saunders,  John,  loyalist,  49. 

Seldon,  Miles,  patriot,  63. 

Sequestration,  of  estates,  70; 
of  debts,  80-81 ;  law  repealed, 
83 ;  payments  refunded,  171- 
173;  of  estates,  84-86;  of 
Fairfax  estate,  104-106. 

Shedden,  Robert,  merchant,  34; 
arrested,  46;  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Shenandoah,  inquest  over  prop¬ 
erty,  108. 

Simons,  Joseph,  and  Connolly 
lands,  100. 


202 


INDEX 


Smith,  Meriwether,  on  return 
of  loyalists,  135. 

Smith,  Thomas,  patriot,  63. 

Smithfield,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  95n. ;  97. 

Spiers,  Andrew,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  95n. ;  100.  _ 

Spotsylvania,  taxes  in  arrears, 
121n. 

Sprowle,  Andrew,  loyalist,  44; 
property  confiscated,  97n. ;  98. 

“Stay  laws,”  passed  1781,  124; 
passed  November  1783,  144; 
passed  May  1784,  145. 

Stephenson,  Andrew,  property 
confiscated,  97n. 

Stewart,  Thomas,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  97n. 

Stuart,  Roger,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 

Suffolk,  sale  of  confiscated 
property,  97. 

Taxes,  colonial,  23 ;  on  loyal¬ 
ists,  73;  collected  1778,  82; 
87n. ;  payable  in  commodities, 
119;  collections  postponed, 
119;  delinquent,  120-121. 

Taylor,  John,  in  assembly,  138; 
United  States  Senator,  169. 

Thompson,  Talbot,  property 
confiscated,  97n. 

Thurston,  Charles,  member  of 
assembly,  64. 

Timoly,  Joshua,  and  oath  of 
allegiance,  74. 

Transylvania  University,  re¬ 
ceives  confiscated  property, 

99. 

Treaty  of  Paris,  news  received 
in  Virginia,  127 ;  terms,  127- 
128 ;  attitude  of  Virginia 
debtors  towards,  128 ;  com¬ 
ments  on  in  Virginia  press, 
129;  petitions  on  in  Virginia 
assembly,  130;  and  loyalists, 
133-135;  142;  before  Virginia 
assembly,  144 ;  not  executed 


in  Virginia,  148-150;  see 
debts ;  loyalists. 

Tucker,  St.  George,  on  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  Constitution,  160. 

Tyler,  John,  on  Treaty  of  Paris, 
128;  132;  on  return  of  loyal¬ 
ists,  139. 

Upham,  Colonel,  report  on 
Virginia  loyalists,  54. 

Upshur,  Arthur,  loyalist,  34. 

Walker,  Thomas,  sued  for 
debts,  163. 

Waller,  Benjamin,  debts,  28. 

Walpole  Company,  and  Vir¬ 
ginia  claim  to  western  lands, 
10. 

Ward,  Edward,  address  to 
Lord  Dunmore,  36. 

Ware,  Admr.  of  Jones,  vs.  Hyl¬ 
ton,  Virginia  sequestration 
law  set  aside,  167-171. 

Warwick,  loyalism  in,  54. 

Washington,  George,  land 
speculation,  11;  22. 

Webb,  George,  debts,  27. 

Wentworth,  Paul,  on  Revolu¬ 
tion  in  Virginia,  4. 

West  Augusta,  inhabitants  pe¬ 
tition  Congress  for  govern¬ 
ment,  35n. 

Wilkie,  John,  property  seized, 
85. 

Williams,  John,  property  con¬ 
fiscated,  95n. 

Williamsburg,  prisoners  at,  56; 
public  buildings  ordered  sold, 
113. 

Williamson,  Joseph,  mobbed, 
137. 

Winchester,  prisoners  at,  51 ; 
resolutions  on  Treaty  of 
Paris,  133. 

Wingate,  John,  loyalist,  64. 

Wishart,  William,  suppresses 
loyalists,  57. 


INDEX 


203 


Wood,  James,  Indian  agent, 
35n. 

Wormley,  John,  returns  to  Vir¬ 
ginia,  136. 

Wormley,  Ralph,  loyalist,  49; 
53 ;  63. 

Wray,  Collins,  property  confis¬ 
cated,  97n. 


Wythe,  George,  in  Congress, 
66;  judge  in  debt  cases,  174. 

York,  loyalism  in,  54. 
Yorktown,  Lord  Dunmore  takes 
refuge  at,  32 ;  loyalism  in,  57 ; 
55. 

Younghusband,  John,  merchant, 
123. 


( 


/ 


s' 


\ 


/> 


r 

\  ; 


A 


V 


r  * 


•  * 


s  -  -V*  -  t  * 

r 


.5  H296L  copyl  88553 


4 

f 


» 

; 


